Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Climate Change (Flooding)

Angela Smith: What steps his Department is taking to ensure that measures are put in place to deal with the likely effects of climate change, with particular reference to flooding.

Phil Woolas: The Department has always encouraged operating authorities to take account of climate change in their planning of flood management measures. Our guidance was last updated in October 2006. It recommends a precautionary approach, but it is of course kept under review and will be further updated as the science develops.

Angela Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but I want to remind the House of the terrible damage suffered by my constituents in the June floods. I contend that the scale of the flooding would have been significantly reduced if the upland catchment area adjacent to my constituency had been in a sufficient condition to hold the water as nature intended. Will he commit the Department to extending programmes designed to restore upland blanket bogs so that they can fulfil their proper role as an important part of our natural flood defence system?

Phil Woolas: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I know very well the part of the world to which she refers. I can go further than she asks. Together with the Environment Agency, as part of our "Making space for water" policy, we are researching the impact of moorland gripping—the name given to the draining of moorland peat bogs by digging ditches alongside them, as part of the wider land management agenda and consideration of its effect on flood risk. Early indications show that it can help, but not always. It is not quite as straightforward as that.

Michael Jack: The Minister will understand that resources are to be a key element in the delivery of the Government's flood prevention policies. Taking into account Sir John Bourn's critical appraisal of the Department's financial management structure and the £270 million of internal savings that it will have to make, as well as the fact that its administrative budget is £50 million overspent and that there is a £300 million disallowance fine hanging over it, what guarantees can the Minister give the House that the money that is designed to increase expenditure on flood protection will be delivered over the next three years?

Phil Woolas: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, and recognise the work that he does for the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I can give him those reassurances. Of course, we have to balance our books, as he would want us to. That is the proper thing to do. I can assure him that despite the need to balance our books we can deliver the increases in flood defence expenditure, both capital and revenue. Importantly—this is something else for which he has called—we will do so with a long-term framework, as that is critical to the protection of the public.

Alan Simpson: In Germany, in four of the main Länder that are prone to flooding, local authorities have the powers to insist that planning applications will not even be looked at unless they contain flood protection provision. The Netherlands, a country with the highest level of flood protection anywhere, is now talking about surrendering 1 million acres of land back to the sea and having buildings that must be flood compatible. In each case, developers are made liable for the flood damage to which their buildings are prone. Is the Minister seeking to deliver any similar powers to local authorities in the forthcoming Planning Bill?

Phil Woolas: I thank my hon. Friend for the question, and recognise and commend the work that he is doing. We have talked about that work and I look forward very much to its production. The answer to the question is that we have planning policy statement 25, which gives powers to the Environment Agency to look at plans. We are monitoring the local authorities' performance in that area to see whether it is sufficient. Clearly, there is a lot more to do and we will bear in mind his point about the lessons from Germany and the Netherlands.

Nigel Evans: The Minister also knows my constituency, having made a few sneaked visits to it. He knows that it contains many small villages with brooks and rivers. Some of them have drainage systems that are antiquated to say the least and some have suffered flooding in the past. Will he ensure that all the agencies, especially local authorities, which are responsible for cleaning up brooks and smaller rivers in rural areas, always allocate sufficient funds to proper cleaning so that unnecessary flooding does not happen when there is heavy rain?

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I do, indeed, know his beautiful constituency—I know Byrne and Sons well.
	There are different operating authorities, depending on the circumstances. For example, they could be water companies, drainage boards, local authorities or the Environment Agency. As part of the Pitt review, we have asked Sir Michael to make recommendations on how we can better co-ordinate matters to ensure that the policies are carried out and that drains are maintained for flood protection and the benefit of biodiversity, which is, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, among the most beautiful in the United Kingdom.

David Drew: Yesterday, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs visited Lyon to examine the approach taken there to sustainable urban drainage. It was a useful visit—it is good to see the Chairman in his place this morning. We were impressed most by the comprehensiveness of the approach to tackling flooding, and the research money invested in finding preventive measures. Can we learn something from Lyon? What are the Government doing to ensure that we take the best from international examples?

Phil Woolas: I look forward to reading the lessons from the Select Committee. My hon. Friend's account shows the value of Select Committees' work. Indeed, his point was made yesterday at the meeting of the all-party group on water, especially by representatives of UK Water Industry Research. Of course, we can learn lessons; that is part of the review. I remind the House that the Government were consulted on such matters before the floods, in case anyone suggests that there has been a knee-jerk reaction—that would be completely unfair and uncharacteristic.

Mark Harper: My constituency experience shows that, when flood protection systems are rightly put in place to protect our towns and cities, farmers consequently find that their land floods more frequently. Do the Government have any plans to introduce procedures whereby farmers are compensated for that to cover the obvious economic impact?

Phil Woolas: We are, of course, familiar with that issue. The use of meadows and fields, low lying and upland, in a co-ordinated flood management programme is part of our strategy, and it raises difficult questions about economic impact. Our policy is to use such land as part of a co-ordinated plan. Such usage is normally, although not always—I know of some instances to the contrary in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—part of an agreed plan, where the land floods in any event.

Paddy Tipping: Is not one of the most significant issues to arise from this summer's flooding the inability of urban sewers to deal with flash flooding? What steps are being considered to deal with that problem, bearing in mind that the financial costs will be significant over a long period?

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend, as ever, raises the most important point. There are two answers to the question. First, I am sure that the House agrees that we must not lose sight of the cause of the problem, which, in the long run, is climate change. That is why the Bali road map is so important for our country. Secondly, if the question was simply maintenance of drains, it would be straightforward; the task would be expensive and difficult, but straightforward. However, the capacity of drainage is also a problem. That is why the Government's approach is to ensure, first, increased funding and, secondly, a long-term framework to effect a generational improvement in infrastructure.

Christopher Huhne: Given that millions of people are at risk from surface water drainage, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) pointed out, what progress has the Department made on its previously announced policy, in response to "Making space for water", to put the Environment Agency in an overarching strategic role over all flood risks?
	Considering the £3 billion of losses that we now know occurred during the summer as a result of the flooding, are Ministers confident that the increase in the budget that has been announced fulfils requirements? For example, are the costs of the repairs to flood defences being met from the new budget or will there be a separate allowance? Is it the case that flood defence projects—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I count about four supplementaries, and there should be only one.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman raises some important points. We took the decision to delay the publication of our water strategy document until after Sir Michael had reported. That was a dilemma, I confess, but we thought it the right thing to do, so that we could take the lessons on board.
	The hon. Gentleman is right: the estimated cost of the floods is £3 billion—I think that that is the domestic impact, not including the business impact. Again, that shows the need for climate change mitigation. As Sir Nicholas Stern reported, it is more expensive not to act than to act. Whether the level we chose is the right level, I do not know—my crystal ball is cloudy on that point. We do not know what the level of floods will be. However, I am aware that the £800 million that we allocated is even more than the figure of £750 million that Association of British Insurers suggested before the summer floods. However, all Governments would always want to spend more, because such decisions are difficult.

Anne McIntosh: The whole House will sympathise with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) on the damage suffered in her constituency and with people up and down the country. The Minister has said that funding will be increased, but is he saying that it will be increased everywhere except Yorkshire and the Humber? In his reply to me of 20 November, he admitted that there had been a cut in construction industry contracts of more than £8 billion over a four-year period. When he decides to visit the internal drainage board area, will he take the opportunity to go to the Bentley Ings, which takes the water from Sheffield and was instrumental in this summer's massive floods at Toll Bar? Those river defences are cracking. They have had emergency repairs, but they need full repairs. Does he accept that the issue is to do with physical infrastructure as well as water retention, and will he ensure that there is a commitment to Yorkshire and the Humber, as well as other parts of the country?

Phil Woolas: I read the  Yorkshire Post regularly—Saddleworth being in Yorkshire—and I saw the hon. Lady's report. The serious answer to her question, however, is that she missed two crucial points in the parliamentary answer that she cited, which I signed off in the full knowledge that it would result in a press release to the  Yorkshire Post. First, the amounts given refer to contracted expenditure, not direct expenditure by the Environment Agency. Secondly, she missed out the fact that the figure was a lot higher the year before and that over the years it has increased significantly. Expenditure did indeed contract in the years that she mentioned, but that is in the nature of engineering schemes of that sort. They cannot be turned on and off, and the budget has been increased.

Fish Discards

Richard Ottaway: If he will make a statement on Government policy on fish discards

Julie Kirkbride: If he will make a statement on Government policy on fish discards

Jonathan R Shaw: Discarding is a waste of a valuable natural resource, which has a detrimental impact upon the sustainability of fish stocks, and has significant social and economic consequences for the long-term viability of the fishing industry. We are working with the UK industry and with the Commission and other member states to tackle this effectively, reflecting the circumstances of individual fisheries.

Richard Ottaway: Although this will not endear me to the fishing industry, may I ask whether the Minister recognises that there is widespread concern among consumers in my constituency about the conservation of fish stocks? The latest revelation about fish discards has hardly helped the matter. Can he explain why the 2002 EU community action plan to end discarding by 2006 failed and why we did not start that initiative when we held the presidency in 2005?

Jonathan R Shaw: There will always be discarding. The nature of our fisheries is mixed. Indeed, there are about 36 varieties of fish in the south-west, and fishermen discard those for which there is no market. We are working with the industry on this, and looking at trials of new nets that would allow certain species to escape. We have also introduced a number of measures, including, for example, the consideration of real-time closures, and we are working with the industry to ensure that it identifies juvenile stocks so that they can mature before they are caught. We are working with the Commission and looking at action plans. We want to reduce discarding. Consumers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and throughout the country want to see reductions in discards. Importantly, however, discards in the North sea are an unintended consequence of an increase in stocks. We must also not forget the conservation element involved. Our decisions are taken on the basis of science.

Julie Kirkbride: I was heartened by the Minister's original answer that he takes discards seriously. He will be aware that European fish stocks are worryingly low. It is an obscenity that, of all the fish that are caught, 17 lb are thrown back for every 1 lb that is brought back into port. While I welcome some of the measures that he has just mentioned, will he assure the House that, if they prove effective, our European counterparts in France, Spain and Portugal will have to abide by them as well?

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Lady has mentioned a number of member states that have overfished. The Commission has come down very hard on them and fined them. We welcome that, particularly in relation to the overfishing of blue fin tuna. The Commission takes discards seriously; the Commissioner has gone on record on this, and we are supporting him in this process. However, there will always be discards, because of the mixed nature of our fisheries. There are some fish for which there simply is not a market, and others will be below the minimum landing size. It is unacceptable, however, to discard high-value stocks such as cod—hon. Members will have seen pictures of such discarding on television—and we need to work harder to ensure that that does not happen. That involves a partnership between ourselves and the industry, and working with other member states.

Tony Lloyd: It is obvious that the present level of fish discards represents bad economics, but it is also very bad in an environmental sense, in that it is bad for the ecosystem of the sea. My hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that many types of fish are not usable at the moment. That does not mean, however, that they can never be usable. Should not we make a real effort to educate our consumers to use the types of fish that, historically, have been rejected? That would make a major difference to the practice of discarding.

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend is quite right, and we are now seeing a change in what the consumer is buying. We are grateful to the celebrity chefs who have promoted fish such as red gurnard, for example. It is caught in the south-west and was once discarded but is now fetching a high price. Indeed, an official told me this morning that he had had red gurnard on the Eurostar when he went to Brussels, so it is not just being served in specialist areas; it is also reaching the mainstream. People can now eat red gurnard as they pass through the glorious Kent countryside in my constituency.

David Taylor: The Minister has said that there will always be discarding, but why should that be the case? Instead of being compelled to dump fish, should not fishermen be compelled to land everything that they catch? Should it not be an offence to discard undersized or out-of-quota fish? Such a land-all policy would give scientists a much better picture of what fish were being caught, and where. That would enable them to devise more accurate conservation and recovery plans. Is not that the way ahead?

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to get a better picture of the total discards, and we have been working on that programme since 2002. It is important that we bring in measures to reduce the level of discards. All the European countries in the common fisheries policy have to discard fish, perhaps because they do not have quotas or because there is no market for some of the fish. What does one do with such fish? Either they are disposed of at sea, or an inshore infrastructure has to be put in place to dispose of them. This is a difficult issue, and we take it very seriously. As I have said, the Commissioner also takes it seriously. We need to improve, and that involves working with the industry and bringing fishermen and scientists together, as we have done under the fisheries science partnership over the past five years. I hope that we will see a continued reduction. It is important to remember that the discards are an unintended consequence of quotas. We are not taking as many fish out of the sea as we once did. In 1987, 187,000 tonnes of cod were taken out of the sea; this year, the amount was less than 20,000.

Alistair Carmichael: May I assure the Minister and, indeed, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) that the outrage at the phenomenon of discards is nowhere felt more greatly than in the fishing industry and fishing communities themselves, because discards are a consequence of setting quotas that do not accurately reflect the mix of fish to be found in the sea? May I suggest that if the Minister and his ministerial colleagues want to see a real reduction in discards in the coming 12 months, the best thing he can do is win an increase in the cod quota for our white fish fleet and, more importantly, ensure that sufficient days at sea are available to that fleet to catch the quota that he gets?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful for that question. I have been to Peterhead and met fishermen there, so the hon. Gentleman's point is understood. As to the cod increase, on the basis of the scientific evidence from both our scientists and those of the Commission, we have negotiated with Norway in the EU-Norway negotiations an 11 per cent. increase in cod total allowable catch. That is allowable within the cod recovery programme, and we hope for a reduction in the amount of discards of that valuable species. There is often a direct correlation between increasing the TAC and reducing days at sea, so we have agreed a UK position on bringing into play a more sophisticated approach, including real-time closures—a voluntary agreement operating in the Scottish industry—and looking at the development of new nets, which will be trialled in the North sea later next year.

Ann Winterton: Is the Minister aware that the Fishermen's Association Ltd has indicated that its members are throwing back into the sea six to seven-year-old cod, which were in existence before the cod recovery plan? Not only does that pollute the marine environment, but it is the most appalling waste. Does not that reinforce the special report of the European Court of Auditors, which said that the common fisheries policy was a complete failure?

Jonathan R Shaw: I have just said that we are going to have an increase—a modest increase of 11 per cent., based on the science—in the amount of cod that we can catch, because the cod stocks have recovered. We are all familiar with stories from Newfoundland about fishermen going out to sea but finding that there were no fish left. We must have in place a regime, based on the scientific evidence, ensuring that we have fish today and fish tomorrow, both for us to consume and for the industry. We are working hard with the Commission and in partnership with the industry to ensure that stocks are conserved and available for tomorrow. We are in the common fisheries policy and we are members of the European Union, and in order to improve the common fisheries policy, we have to be part of the discussions and part of the argument, as this country always is, whether on the common fisheries policy or the common agricultural policy.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister has led the House to believe that he is against discarding. He has used words such as "waste", "detrimental" and others. In DEFRA's 20-year plan, taking us to 2027, for marine fisheries—and, indeed, in the consultation response document—it is made perfectly clear that DEFRA has no intention to stop discarding. Despite his warm words, it looks like it is going to be a policy under this Government—the watchword for incompetence—for the next 20 years. When is the Minister going to stop discarding and stop leading people to believe that it can be stopped? When he uses words such as "immoral" and "heartbreaking" in  The Daily Telegraph, is he talking about his Department or himself?

Jonathan R Shaw: As I told the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), we will always have discards because we have a mixed fishery. Does the hon. Gentleman understand that? Also, there is no market for some fish, so what do the fishermen do with it? They discard it. What I said was that having to throw away valuable stocks such as cod was immoral, and that we needed to find better answers.
	It is not the case that we are against all discarding. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands, if a fish is below the minimum landing size it must be discarded. In mixed fisheries they all swim together, so there will always be discards. In the case of valuable stocks such as cod we must find new ways of reducing the number of discards, such as real-time closures and better gear. That is what I said in  The Daily Telegraph, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Food Producers

Andrew George: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues and the competition authorities on the role of food producers in the grocery supply chain.

Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Competition Commission is currently conducting an inquiry into the groceries market. My colleague Lord Rooker wrote to the Commission when it opened the inquiry, listing some questions that he thought should be considered, and his letter has been published on the Competition Commission website. However, in line with the general policy of Government, neither I nor other DEFRA Ministers have had discussions about the inquiry with Cabinet members, or indeed with the competition authorities.

Andrew George: According to the provisional findings of the Competition Commission, published at the end of October, grocery retailers are transferring
	"excessive risk and costs to suppliers".
	Moreover, there is already a concentration in the grocery sector whereby four major retailers control 80 per cent. of the market. That concentration is likely to increase, and the trend among supermarkets to move from effective use to unacceptable abuse of their power is therefore likely to increase as well. Does the Minister not accept that this is a matter for her Department, which should get a grip on it, that she should start discussing it with her colleagues in the Cabinet, and that the Department should prepare plans to ensure that suppliers are properly protected in the grocery supply chain?

Joan Ruddock: I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, and I know that he has taken a keen interest in these matters, not least in his constituency. However, I am sorry to say that it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage, when the Competition Commission has published only its preliminary findings and when there is an opportunity for those who participated in the inquiry to comment on their initial findings. I understand that the commission will report early in the new year, and when it has done so Ministers will give an appropriate response if recommendations are made to the Government.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that part of the major problem we face is the power of the big four squeezing down farm gate prices and putting farmers out of business. That kind of competition needs to be examined closely, as should the power of supermarkets that hold land and prevent other companies from using sites because they will not sell them.

Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I can tell him that the Competition Commission has concluded that some retailer landholdings and practices such as restrictive covenants may indeed hinder competition.
	The commission says that a variety of means could be applied, and we will consider them at the appropriate time. It suggests that grocery retailers might divest themselves of their landholdings; that they could be prohibited from using restrictive covenants that reduce the likelihood of land being used by a competitor; that changes could be made to the planning system that would provide more opportunities for developments on the edge of town centres while maintaining constraints on out-of-town developments; and that it might be possible to introduce a competition test allowing the local position of grocery retailers to be considered in the making of planning decisions. Those are all important initial findings, and as I said, we will take them into account if and when recommendations are made to the Government.

Sea Defences

Douglas Carswell: What steps he plans to take to strengthen the sea defences at Holland-on-Sea and Clacton-on-Sea.

Phil Woolas: Tendring district council has developed proposals for investment in coastal defences. Those are being considered by the Environment Agency.

Douglas Carswell: It is likely that unless action is taken the sea wall at Holland-on-Sea will soon be lost. If that happens, it will put the roadway and housing at risk. In view of that, will the Minister make a commitment now to begin phase one of the work that we had been promised back in 2003?

Phil Woolas: I have had a look at this specific case in response to the hon. Gentleman's correspondence on behalf of his constituents. A grant of £400,000 was given in 2004 for the collapsed sea wall at Holland-on-Sea. The council itself spends some £550,000 per year recurrently on defences. It is not the case that an application was granted and then withdrawn; it is the case that the application that was subsequently submitted did not pass the new rules that had by then been put in place. However, as I have said, the Environment Agency is now looking at the future requirements in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Sustainable Farming

Jim Cunningham: What steps the Government have taken to encourage the farming industry to adopt sustainable farming practices.

Hilary Benn: The Government want farming to thrive while reducing its environmental footprint. We are supporting that in a number of ways, including through cross-compliance linked to common agricultural policy payments and the rural development programme for England 2007-13, which will invest £3.9 billion in farming and rural areas. I am pleased to announce that this programme has now been approved by the European Union and we will proceed to full implementation as soon as possible.

Jim Cunningham: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but can he be more specific? What is he doing to make organic food both more available and cheaper for the consumer?

Hilary Benn: The organic industry is growing extremely fast. As my hon. Friend will be aware, we have our own action plan that aims to encourage the industry to ensure that by 2010 the share of the organic market coming from home-grown produce is equivalent to the share of the overall market, which is about 70 per cent. We are trying to encourage locally produced food and better information for consumers. Sales through vegetable boxes, farmers' markets and mail order increased by 9 per cent. last year, and it is estimated that there are 550 farmers' markets with a turnover of £220 million. It is clear, therefore, that consumers have an increasing appetite for organic produce.

Mark Pritchard: But does the Secretary of State agree that one way to help British farmers—and Shropshire farmers in particular—is to have more transparently clear labelling not of where farm products were packaged, but of where they were sourced?

Hilary Benn: I agree. I am keen to pursue the fundamental principle that when we as consumers choose to purchase products, we have decent information about their origin. I am very happy to look at any proposals on that score.

David Heath: May I ask the Secretary of State to look at the sustainability of livestock markets? Frome market—one of the biggest in the south of England—is within yards of the Wiltshire border. Wiltshire is in the bluetongue surveillance zone; Somerset is not. That means that animals can graze almost up to the border of the market and a new market could be opened in the next field, and yet animals from the east of the market cannot be sold in Frome market. Midges do not understand county boundaries; does the Secretary of State?

Hilary Benn: I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's case, but the point about the control of bluetongue is that there has to be a line somewhere, and it is easier to follow county boundaries than to draw a circular line that cuts across them, because it is then harder for people to understand whether they are in or out of the zone. On the fundamental issue of bluetongue—we have previously discussed this in the House—in the end a balance must be struck on where to draw those lines. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have consulted closely with representatives of the industry, and the stakeholder group is of the view that currently we should have the boundaries where they are, rather than extend them to bring the whole of England into the bluetongue zone. Obviously, winter is arriving, and there will be less midge activity. We are working on— [Interruption.] Well, I understand that, but the lines have to be drawn somewhere. However, as I have previously said, if the industry were to come to me and say with one voice, "Actually, we think now is the time to change the boundaries" I would look at that request very seriously indeed.

James Paice: On food labelling, the Secretary of State could not do better than to examine the four Bills that the Government have blocked on that subject.
	How can the farming industry be truly sustainable if it is to be treated differently from its competitors? For example, we rightly have strict geographical and movement controls, which ban the export of meat from parts of this country, whereas although the European Union's Food and Veterinary Office has found serious problems with the traceability and compliance system in Brazil, we continue to import Brazilian beef. Is that fair and sustainable?

Hilary Benn: The EU has strict rules in relation to Brazil. Brazil is a big country, and foot and mouth is a problem in some parts of it, but not in others.

Bill Wiggin: But that is true here too.

Hilary Benn: That is indeed the case here, but things are gradually returning to normal. I accept that the livestock industry has had an awful summer, and we have debated that at some length. The question is not whether Brazil should be looked at as one entity; the question is whether we have appropriate arrangements in place to ensure that imports come from areas where foot and mouth is not a problem.

Climate Change (China)

Madeleine Moon: What assessment he has made of the potential contribution of China to tackling climate change.

Hilary Benn: China will soon become the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. China's own national assessment report highlights the potential impact of climate change on its security, growth and development. A stronger national programme is being developed with targets to reduce energy intensity and to increase the use of renewables. The UK continues to work with China on initiatives for a global low-carbon economy and an effective international framework to tackle climate change.

Madeleine Moon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. China is opening two coal-fired power stations a week, and it has coal reserves of 1 trillion tonnes. When President Sarkozy signed an agreement to open nuclear power stations with China, he said that because of their partnership it was more important to avoid confrontation over intellectual property rights than to make progress on this issue. Is it not time for Britain to share its knowledge about clean-coal technology with China and develop a partnership arrangement so we can tackle CO2 emissions?

Mr. Speaker: Order. A supplementary must be shorter than that.

Hilary Benn: That is exactly what we are doing through the near-zero emissions coal project, which is a joint EU-China project to develop and then to deploy carbon capture and storage. The UK will put in £3.5 million-worth of funding in the first phase, and we are working with other EU member states. China's annual coal production is set to double to a staggering 5 billion tonnes a year by 2030. We must develop carbon capture and storage if the world is to have any prospect of obtaining the reductions in carbon emissions that are required. That is why there will be a demonstration project in the UK on post-combustion technology and why we are playing an important role in promoting this scheme with China.

Nick Hurd: China is seeking to move 400 million people from the country into cities over the next 30 years, and in that process it will build approximately half the new buildings in the world. Chinese homes are about three times less energy efficient than European ones. What are the British Government doing to facilitate the transfer of British expertise and technology to help the Chinese make those buildings as energy efficient as possible?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. China is already an economic powerhouse and it will be the source of huge amounts of development over the next few years. The best thing that is happening is the growing awareness in China, on the part of the Government and the people, particularly the younger generation, that this process will create problems and challenges for China itself. China is coming to terms with the impact of pollution as a result of its industrialisation, and it is having to take action, including imposing tight controls on vehicle emissions.
	My view is that intellectual property is not the problem when it comes to technology transfer; the problem is whether countries can afford the technology. China has undoubtedly been very successful in attracting investment from all around the world. As China's understanding of climate change and what needs to be done develops—it will shortly publish its national climate change plan—we will continue to work with it to encourage it to take the necessary steps in China while trying to win its support for a new international deal.

Thames Estuary

Andrew MacKinlay: What assessment he has made of the risk of flooding in the Thames estuary following the recent alert; and if he will make a statement.

Phil Woolas: London and the Thames estuary are protected to an extremely high standard. Current indications are that existing defences provide a better standard of protection than previously thought and are unlikely to require any major changes until after 2030.

Andrew MacKinlay: I thank the Minister for his reassurance on that point. Will he talk with his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government and those dealing with the Thames Gateway to see whether an additional east London crossing, which might include rail and road, could also incorporate engineering works that would help to control flooding and tidal flows in the Thames estuary? That would give assurances not only to existing residents, but to people who wish to regenerate both sides of the estuary.

Phil Woolas: I have already done so, and on my hon. Friend's urging will certainly do so again. The long-term plans for flood protection for the Thames estuary and London are extremely important, which is why we pay particular attention to them, and co-ordinating those with the Thames Gateway policies—as the Prime Minister announced in his speech on 29 November to the Thames Gateway conference—is of course a central part of the strategy. That is why we are working with the Department for Communities and Local Government to look at regeneration and integrating the schemes. It is a point that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) often misses.

Topical Questions

Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Hilary Benn: DEFRA's responsibility is to help to enable all of us to live within our environmental means. I take this opportunity to draw the House's attention to today's written ministerial statement, announcing that there will be a badge for members of the Women's Land Army in recognition of their contribution during the second world war. I also wish to congratulate the new Australian Government on their ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

Michael Fabricant: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer and the announcement about the Women's Land Army is good news indeed. They deserve that badge.
	If a canal bursts its banks, there can be tens of millions of pounds worth of collateral damage as a consequence. The Secretary of State will know that past DEFRA cuts have meant that British Waterways has a huge backlog of canal maintenance. Can he tell us now whether British Waterways will continue to suffer the retail prices index minus 5 per cent. cuts, and when will it be in a position to say that its finances are finally secured?

Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about the badge for the Women's Land Army, and I look forward to helping to distribute some of those badges next year when the final arrangements are in place and the surviving members of the WLA have come forward.
	I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the maintenance of the canal network. As he will know, we have provided £452 million in grant since 2000 for waterways in England and Wales. Final allocations for the first years of the comprehensive spending review period have not yet been decided, but that will happen early in the new year, when we have considered all the representations that have been made, including the ones that he has made to me.

Katy Clark: Will my right hon. Friend outline Britain's priorities in the climate change discussions in Bali and his hopes for the outcome of those discussions?

Hilary Benn: Our priorities are, above all, to gain agreement from all the nations of the world that we should embark on a process of negotiation for a new 2012 agreement to replace the Kyoto protocol, which is simply inadequate given the scale of the task. That has to be based on a recognition of the scale of the problem, and therefore the target that we are trying to achieve; binding commitments to reduce emissions from the rich countries; a contribution from the emerging developing countries, including those such as China and India, which are now significant emitters; a carbon market; flow of funds to developing countries; and action on technology, adaptation, deforestation, aviation and shipping. That is the list. There is a big responsibility on everybody who turns up in Bali, because the world will not understand if we leave without an agreement to start the negotiations that every single one of us knows that we need if we are to have any chance of dealing with this challenge.

David Taylor: The Government's desire for a major shift to the farming industry of the responsibility for the cost of animal health seems to be driven by DEFRA's acute financial crisis. Does the Minister agree that a year in which we have had foot and mouth, avian influenza and bluetongue is not exactly the best time to consult on those matters? How will he devise a system that will be fair to farmers and their families across England, Wales and Scotland?

Hilary Benn: I understand my hon. Friend's view, but it could be argued that there is never a right time to do it. One of the recommendations of Iain Anderson after the 2001 outbreak was that we should do precisely this and have a discussion with the industry. This is not the start of a process; it will be the resumption of the process, after a very difficult summer for the livestock industry—I grant my hon. Friend that point. I have said to the House before that my experience of dealing with these outbreaks has confirmed to me that this is the direction in which we should go. It builds on the relationship that we have developed with representatives of the farming industry in taking decisions about how to deal with bluetongue, foot and mouth, and avian influenza. I am seriously committed to sharing that responsibility with the farming industry. At the same time, it is not unreasonable to discuss how the costs should be equally shared.

Peter Ainsworth: May I endorse what the Secretary of State said about the importance of the Bali conference? I join him in hoping that it is successful. Does he think that the UK's credibility in those international talks is enhanced by the fact that, back home, his Department is busily cutting the budgets of organisations engaged in tackling climate change, dealing with recycling, looking after nature conservation and protecting the environment?

Hilary Benn: As the hon. Gentleman will know, DEFRA's budget is going to rise from £3.5 billion this year to £3.96 billion in 2010-11, which is a real-terms increase of 1.4 per cent. a year. That is the first point. Secondly, where is that money going? One example is increased expenditure on flood defence. We were asked earlier by the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), for an assurance that that money would come through and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment gave that assurance.
	We are investing more in low-carbon technologies, including through the environmental transformation fund, both at home and abroad—in response to earlier questions. In the end, action on climate change is not just about the amount of money that is spent by Government. It is about getting the right framework. In particular, it is about shifting the huge amounts of private sector investment in a low-carbon direction. That is why the Climate Change Bill is the most important contribution. There is also the climate change levy, which the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and his party have opposed; the energy efficiency commitment; the carbon reduction commitment, which will be part of the Climate Change Bill; and the carbon market and the EU emissions trading scheme, which is the best hope that we have when it comes to resulting in change in the direction that we all want—a significant reduction in carbon emissions.

Peter Ainsworth: I wonder whether, prior to the Bali conference, the Secretary of State has had a chance to read the United Nations official report, which concluded on the Climate Change Bill:
	"If the rest of the developed world followed the pathway envisaged in the UK's Climate Change Bill, dangerous climate change would be inevitable".
	Earlier this week, the Secretary of State said that he would welcome an Opposition who came forward with ideas about how we could do things differently. I have an idea for him. Will he join me in welcoming proposals being put forward by the Conservatives today to revolutionise the way we invest in and promote renewable energy in this country?

Hilary Benn: I genuinely look forward to reading the proposals that the Conservative party has published. In the energy White Paper that was published in the summer there was a whole section on decentralised energy. This very morning, we are laying regulations to change the energy efficiency commitment, which I referred to a moment ago, so that microgeneration will be an eligible measure to support the new carbon emission reduction target. We recently announced a consultation to make it easier for householders to put microgeneration in without the need for planning permission. Microgeneration is eligible under the renewables obligation, and we are proposing changes in that regard. However, we will need to do more. I reiterate what I said earlier this week: we will look at what is required.
	On the UN human development report—in answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question—I suspect that that chapter was written before the Prime Minister made his speech a couple of weeks ago, in which he said that the science is changing, the evidence is changing and we will put to the climate change committee the question, "Do our targets need to be up to 80 per cent. in view of that change?" Even the UN human development report would recognise that, when it comes to leadership and action, the UK is indeed leading the world.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will the Minister ensure that, from Christmas on, only turkeys will be stuffed, and not farmers? Does he agree that we need to recognise the importance of British farming by supporting home-grown products, with clear labelling and a greater use of the red tractor scheme? What help and support can he give in that regard?

Jonathan R Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Earlier this week, I attended the British Poultry Council awards ceremony in this House, at which the difficulties that the industry has faced this year were recognised. I was advised that sales were holding up and that British consumers were continuing to buy British poultry for its quality. Consumers recognise and want the Union jack label, and they are supporting the industry.

Roger Williams: Information recently placed in the Library shows that Whitehall Departments and the services that they run are still not taking full advantage of British food in the public procurement process. British lamb prices are at their lowest for many years, so it is interesting that the Prison Service does not buy any at all. British food offers the very best quality and prices, so will the Minister ensure that all Departments are urged to take advantage of that?

Jonathan R Shaw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I agree that we can do more to encourage procurement from British sources in the public sector. For obvious reasons, it is not always easy for military forces abroad to access domestic markets, and that must be taken into account when the total sums being spent are considered. However, Whitehall and local authorities have the opportunity to buy British, and we are encouraging them to do so. In that way, we will secure sustainable food sources that are not just British but also as local as possible.

John Robertson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know that shipping accounts for 5 per cent. of the world's carbon emissions, a figure that is likely to rise by 75 per cent. over the next 20 years to a level that is twice that of aviation. Does he agree that the Bali conference must take that into consideration, and that it should be included in the agreement that will replace Kyoto?

Hilary Benn: I agree, and I mentioned shipping in the list of objectives that I gave in answer to an earlier question. We have not made as much progress towards achieving international agreement about how we should deal with shipping, bunker fuels and so on as we have with aviation. Indeed, the EU Environment Council later this month will discuss aviation's inclusion in the EU emissions trading scheme, which I hope that we can achieve as quickly as possible.

Paul Burstow: Will the Minister for the Environment confirm that a number of the flood defence projects that the Department has not yet approved have higher rates of financial and social return than many projects in other Departments that have secured approval? Surely the Treasury should provide the necessary funding so that the schemes can go ahead and provide the comfort and protection that many thousands of families deserve and expect.

Phil Woolas: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comprehensive spending review announcement, which contained significant year-on-year increases in capital expenditure for both coastal and river and surface flooding. The necessary resources have been allocated for flood defences, and we can all argue different priorities when it comes to socio-economic benefits. However, I imagine that the hon. Gentleman's constituents want to know whether they are safe from flooding. We believe that our plans mean that they have the best chance possible, given the science that we have available.

Eddie McGrady: If he has not already done so, will the Minister study the impact of cheap Brazilian beef imports on the UK red meat market? He will be aware that Great Britain is the main market for red meat beef from Northern Ireland, where animal health is at a high level and where traceability and development are both good. Will he meet the Livestock Marketing Commission for Northern Ireland to discuss the 10-year plan that has been drawn up in consultation with his Department?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am more than happy to arrange the meeting that my hon. Friend requests. We have been importing Brazilian meat for decades. We consume more meat than we produce. We have in place a range of safeguards for testing meats from not just Brazil but across the world. There have been inspections in Brazil. It is a regionalised country, and not every area has tuberculosis. The results of the most recent inspection have now come before the European Commission, which is considering them, and we will have discussions on them. We want to ensure that any meat or products that come into this country from anywhere in the world are as safe as possible and of the highest standard. If they are not, clearly we need to take action. That applies not only to Brazil, which is an important trading country for us. There have been about £700 million-worth of exports to Brazil this year, but we will make sure that there are safeguards in place as regards Brazil and all other countries.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Secretary of State instruct the Environment Agency to conduct an inquiry into the safety of the lagoons at the Glebe mine in Stoney Middleton? In January this year, one of the lagoons burst its banks and flooded the whole village; a Minister visited the area afterwards. There are reports that another, larger lagoon is already leaking. Given all the difficulties and dangers regarding the pollution of the rivers and the flooding of the village, will the Secretary of State ensure that the Environment Agency holds an inquiry as soon as possible?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing the problem to my attention. I will look into it straight away, and I will come back to him on it.

A303 Stonehenge Road Scheme

Mr. Speaker: I have granted an urgent question, but I inform the House that I expect debate on it to run for no longer than half an hour; the Front Benchers should keep that in mind.

Theresa Villiers: (urgent question) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make a statement on the A303 Stonehenge road scheme.

Tom Harris: May I begin by drawing the House's attention to the written statement that I made earlier this morning? After serious consideration, and with deep regret, I have announced today that the planned improvements to the A303 at Stonehenge will not take place. I recognise that the decision will be a bitter disappointment to the House, the local community, and the wider heritage community. However, the estimated costs have risen from the original £233 million in December 2002 to £540 million. The main reason for the tunnel cost increase was the discovery, following detailed ground condition investigations, of large quantities of phosphatic chalk and a high water table along the line of the tunnel. That significantly increased the costs and the time scale for tunnel construction. In my judgment, the scheme can no longer be afforded within existing budgets.
	However, working with all the relevant stakeholders, I want to make sure that every alternative, affordable option for protecting and enhancing Stonehenge is explored. I will co-chair the reconvened Stonehenge programme board on Monday, along with the Minister with responsibility for tourism, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge). The Department will now consult on the possible closure of the junction of the A344 and A303.

Theresa Villiers: The day the scheme was first announced, the Minister for the Arts, Baroness Blackstone, issued a press release entitled "Stonehenge Will Be Reunited With Its Natural Landscape By 2008".
	"This is a great day for Stonehenge",
	she enthused. The Minister before us today has had the unenviable task of admitting that the Government will never deliver on those high-minded promises. Will he tell us how much has been spent on the scheme that he is aborting today? Will he tell the House what impact the bottleneck has on the economy of the west of England? Will he acknowledge that the problem holds up road improvement and planning applications all the way to Penzance? Will he admit that Stonehenge's world heritage status will be in jeopardy if the problem remains unsolved? Will he confirm that in July the British Government were called on by UNESCO's World Heritage Committee to explain their lack of progress? Will he confirm that his proposal to close the A344 junction is subject to the agreement of Wiltshire county council? How likely is it that such permission will be forthcoming, given that the decision will drive more traffic on to the congested A303?
	What will be the impact on local residents of the scrapping of the long-promised proposals for a Winterbourne Stoke bypass and a flyover at the Countess East junction? What has the Minister done to tackle rat-running through villages such as Chittern, through which satnav takes motorists frustrated by congestion on the A303? Above all, why have the Government taken 10 years simply to return to square one? In that time, the cost of the scheme has spiralled from £192 million to £540 million. Even now, their half-baked excuse of a proposal for the A344 may not happen, because there is no guarantee that they will receive the permission that they need from Wiltshire county council. That is one of the most notorious traffic bottlenecks in the country, and it impacts on great swathes of the south-west, which will feel betrayed by the announcement.
	This is not just the latest in a long line of broken promises on road improvements. It is not just that £23 million of public money has been wasted. More than 5,000 years old, Stonehenge is one of the most famous sites in Britain and is well known almost everywhere on the planet. A world heritage site, it is the supreme achievement of a culture long since lost. Stonehenge—one of our greatest cultural icons—has been left in limbo for a decade as a result of the Government's total inability to make a decision or deliver on their very clear promises.

Tom Harris: The hon. Lady asked how much public money has been spent on the scheme, and went on to give a figure. I have no intention of adding to that.
	The hon. Lady is right to say that the scheme has a long history. We added the proposed improvement to the roads programme in 1998. The scheme was taken to public inquiry in 2004. The inspector's report was received in 2005, and it endorsed the improvement scheme. The scheme that we agreed in 2002, including the tunnel, had an approved cost at that time, as I said, of £223 million, which assumed a construction start date of spring 2005. Following the public inquiry, the Highways Agency reported in 2004 that the estimated scheme cost had risen to £410 million, for the reasons that I have given. Other factors contributed to the cost increase, including more stringent requirements for tunnelling work and rapid inflation in construction costs.
	We concluded in 2005 that the cost increase was on such a scale that it was necessary to revisit other options to confirm whether the scheme taken to public inquiry remained the best solution. We therefore announced in July 2005 that we would defer a decision on the inspector's report and set up an interdepartmental review of all the options. The review identified a shortlist of possible options, including routes to the north and south of Stonehenge. After careful consideration, we have now concluded that owing to significant environmental constraints across the whole of the world heritage site, there is no acceptable alternative to the 2.1km bored tunnel scheme. However—and I hope that the hon. Lady agrees with this—making the best use of taxpayers' money is essential in the allocation of funding to transport schemes. When set against our wider objectives and priorities, we concluded that allocating more than £500 million for the implementation of the scheme simply cannot be justified. She may disagree, and decide that that should be a commitment in her party's manifesto at the next election, but the Government believe that that amount of money is not affordable. We have therefore cancelled the improvement scheme today.
	To address the hon. Lady's specific questions, yes, the A303 is regularly congested. The regional transport board for the south-west has not given priority to that road. The regional financing arrangement that we implemented in 2005 allows local politicians to make local decisions and set their own priorities which the Government, on the whole, respect. Local politicians have not made the decisions that would allow early work to begin on the A303. The hon. Lady was right to raise the issue of UNESCO. I will write to UNESCO to explain the decision and what further efforts we will make to protect the world heritage site which, I agree, is of vital importance not just to this country but to the whole world.
	As for the economic consequences of the continued congestion of the A303, I have been informed that, economically, the south-west is one of the fastest growing regions in the country. That does not mean that we should be complacent about congestion, but whenever the Government try to start a national debate about how we should deal with congestion, the Opposition are less than forthcoming and less than imaginative about how we should introduce demand management in the British economy.
	The hon. Lady mentioned Wiltshire county council. I have been in discussion with my officials, who tell me that Wiltshire county council is looking with an open mind at the prospect of the closure of the junction of the A344 with the A303. I hope that we can make progress on that, and I hope that we will have her support and her party's support in the proposal to close that junction. Given the announcement that I made today, that remains the best option in the short term for protecting that site.
	The hon. Lady spoke about rat-running, which is a concern to anyone involved in any of the communities, let alone to a Transport Minister. I have asked for very robust transport modelling to assess the consequences of closing off the junction of the A344, and I can assure her that I will not approve any scheme that puts at risk the lives and the safety of people living in that area.

Susan Kramer: Will the Minister at least give us a timetable for coming to a decision on which option to pursue in regard to the A303? The decision has taken longer than it took to build the monument. Will he acknowledge that the overhang of the project has had the effect of crowding out funding for a series of schemes, including safety schemes on the A303 and dualling the remaining stretch of the A30 between Exeter and Truro that comprises a single carriageway?
	Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that any scheme—it is bound to be major—that gets to grips with the problem will be funded outside the regional allocation for roads in the area? Will he please rule out the cheaper but frightening option of a cut-and-cover strategy for tunnelling in the area? Finally, will he give us his absolute assurance that he will engage with local people, as well as with the heritage associations, in trying to come to an appropriate decision for dealing with the road and the traffic congestion?

Tom Harris: For clarity's sake, I should tell the hon. Lady who has, I am sure, read my written statement this morning, that we are not proceeding with the tunnel scheme, the cut-and-cover scheme or any major capital improvements to the A303 at this stage. She speaks about the crowding out of funding for the A303. She may or may not be right about that. I understand the financing constraints in the south-west. However, a huge amount of money has been allocated by the regional transport board for a number of projects in the south-west, which will have a major economic impact in the south-west.
	The hon. Lady spoke of the cheaper but frightening cut-and-cover scheme. As I said, that also has been discounted as an option. It was not the preferred option endorsed by the Government or by the public inquiry. It is not an option on the table today. She asked for engagement with local people. I can assure her that with respect to the proposed closure of the junction of the A344 with the A303 there will be extensive consultation not only with local communities, but with the local county council and other interested bodies.

Angela Smith: Natural England has a responsibility for protecting the interests of sites such as Stonehenge. Will my hon. Friend ensure that he includes Natural England in any discussions about how best to protect and safeguard the future of such an important world heritage site?

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend is correct. We deal with Natural England on an ongoing basis. My Department is in regular contact with it. It will be involved in any decisions that are taken.
	May I take the opportunity to restate the Government's genuine regret that we cannot afford to proceed with the scheme? This is not a proposal that I come to the House to report with a light heart. In an ideal world, we would use whatever money was available to proceed with the scheme. It is a matter of regret that we cannot do so. However, I genuinely believe that this is the right decision, given the economic circumstances and available budgets. If we were to use national funding for the scheme, that would mean some hard decisions about where to withdraw funding—for example, from the M25, the M62 or the M1. I suspect that such a proposal would not meet with much support in the House.

Robert Key: I commiserate with the Minister, who has been sent to the House to do his Secretary of State's dirty work. Will he explain why he could not simply have taken out the most extravagant part of the scheme—the tunnel—and pursued some of the other options, which, after all, the previous Government had committed to providing at dual carriageway standard? Will he confirm that he is also ruling out the National Trust's preferred option of a northern dual carriageway route?
	As we look forward from the wreckage of the project, may I above all ask the Minister to ensure that he will instruct the Highways Agency to co-operate with the county council's highway authority and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that every option is tried to provide an improvement to the road network past Stonehenge—including, perhaps, electronic traffic management to improve traffic flows? Will he confirm that we will not just tinker with a few white lines here and there? We should do something a little radical, and not just completely rule out all improvements. To do that would be to the detriment of not only my constituents but the whole south-west economy—and, above all, the world heritage site of Stonehenge. Stonehenge remains a national disgrace, and that is the Government's fault.

Tom Harris: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has taken a necessarily close interest in the project. I do not want to lower the esteem in which his colleagues hold him, but in the past few weeks he has been very helpful to me as we have come to this decision. I am grateful for that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about other transport options. It would simply not make any economic sense from a transport point of view to progress the rest of the A303 improvements without the tunnel. That would not stack up in terms of economic benefits, and the business case for such a scheme would not be proven. That is why we have, reluctantly, come to our decision.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the northern route alternative was still an option. I have to tell him that it is not, as that is also outwith available budgets. On his third point, I should say that the road is the responsibility of the Highways Agency. Notwithstanding the requirement of the regional fund allocation to provide for major capital improvements, the Highways Agency's responsibility is to provide basic maintenance and ensure, for example, that accident blackspots are addressed. The agency will continue to do that.
	This morning I asked officials to look again at the A303 to find out whether we could provide any other measures, additional to those that we have already undertaken. I cannot make any promises at this stage, but I will, of course, keep the hon. Gentleman informed.

Robert Walter: The A303 is the major east-west artery through my constituency, so I welcome the Minister's suggestion that the consequences of this issue will be considered by local politicians. However, I remind him that the Government ignored the South West regional assembly on the A303 improvements west of Ilminster.
	More importantly, will the Minister confirm that the A344 closure will merely make the problem worse on the A303? Furthermore, will he confirm what I just heard him say—that all the other schemes on the A303 are being abandoned as well? Does that mean that we will no longer see the improvements between Wylye and Mere, the next major scheme after Winterbourne Stoke?

Tom Harris: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, it is entirely up to the regional transport board in the south-west to decide its priorities. I have said in my statement that the major scheme improvements of the A303 as it affects Stonehenge will not take place.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the A344 closure and said that it would make the problem worse. An analysis and assessment of the exact repercussions on traffic will be part of the consultation on the proposed closure of that junction. I have already assured the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) that if I judged that road safety would be compromised by the measure, I would not approve it. I do not believe at this stage that the measure would necessarily worsen congestion on the A303, but if it were proved that that would happen, it would be taken into account during the consultation process.

Eric Joyce: Some years ago, I had the privilege of working for the director of the Royal Artillery at Larkhill, which is just a stone's throw from the site. There was a Tory Government at the time. This issue was, of course, a long-running sore. I hear what the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) says—the site is a bit of a disgrace. We had an imaginative in-house solution: to move Stonehenge across to the green area in front of the officers' mess at Larkhill. Is that a more realistic prospect than anything else?

Tom Harris: There is a short and easy answer to that. There are no plans to move Stonehenge; I do not want to start any hares running on that. My hon. Friend says that he lived within a stone's throw of Stonehenge; that would probably be a very long way.

George Young: Does the Minister accept that, as a former Transport Secretary who had plans to deal with this problem and as a local MP for 15 miles of the A303 to the east of the Amesbury roundabout, I was very sorry to hear his statement? Does he recognise that the A303 is dual carriageway all the way from the M3 to the Amesbury roundabout? Does he also recognise that it is an increasingly busy road with several planned business parks and other developments on its periphery? Is it really feasible for him to say that he has no proposals at all to deal with the traffic west of the Amesbury roundabout?

Tom Harris: Apart from the fact that Stonehenge is next to this road, it is a road of regional importance. As with all such roads, any proposal for major capital improvements would involve the regional transport board making recommendations to the Department for Transport. He is of course right to say that he considered the issue in his role as a former Secretary of State for Transport, and it is a matter of regret that I have to report to the House that I have made the same amount of progress as he did.

David Heath: The A303 is supposed to be the second most important strategic route to the south-west and is therefore of national significance, and its neglect over recent years has been deplorable. Given that this scheme has pre-empted a large amount of potential funding, and given the requirements placed on regional authorities by bundling a variety of schemes together to put them out of the price range that is available to them, preventing the progress of perfectly sensible schemes that are already planned, will he look again at proposals such as the safety improvements on the Sparkford to Ilchester part of the A303 in my constituency, which were ready to run in 1997 and which we are now told will be delayed until 2016?

Tom Harris: I think the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Government have some vested interest, or take some peculiar amusement, in creating congestion on any road. If there were an affordable option for relieving congestion on the A303, I would take it. I do not accept his suggestion that other funding avenues have been precluded by consideration of this scheme, but perhaps that is an argument that we can have another day. As I said, the Highways Agency is responsible for maintaining the road and for addressing any safety issues along its route, and it will continue to live up to its responsibility.

Patrick Cormack: Has the Minister not realised that everyone who cares about the built heritage of this country regards the presentation and the preservation of this unique monument of international importance as a national matter, not a regional matter? Is it not a damning indictment that a Government who could squander £700 million on the dome are not prepared to face up to their responsibilities for that?

Tom Harris: I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that you would be quick to call me out of order if I started a debate on the dome.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I or the Department for Transport have no consideration for the value that Stonehenge has in itself and to the rest of the country. It can be argued that Stonehenge is of national importance; the A303 is a road of regional importance. I am the Minister responsible for the Highways Agency, which is not responsible for Stonehenge. Having said that, I am entirely aware of the importance of the DFT and DCMS working together with all the necessary agencies to try to come up with a scheme that is affordable and protects this hugely important and, as the hon. Gentleman says, unique asset in the long term.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Representing Bridgwater means that I have some of the largest distribution centres in the south-west to the south of Bristol in my constituency. I get constant complaints about the level of lorry usage. To get the goods that we need, those lorries have no option but to come from the south coast. This announcement is a slap in the face for business throughout Somerset and the south-west. It will make things much more difficult, given that on certain weekends those lorries cannot move on Friday and Sunday nights because of the weight of traffic around Stonehenge. Does the Minister realise the damage that the Government are doing to business in my area by not allowing the scheme to go ahead?

Tom Harris: I absolutely disagree with the hon. Gentleman, who is trying to make an entirely partisan political point. Given the record amounts of money that this Government have spent on transport infrastructure in the south-west in the past 10 years—considerably more than was ever spent under any previous Government by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young)—I hardly think he can say that we are responsible for a lack of economic growth in the south-west. On the contrary, as has already been pointed out, the south-west is one of the fastest-growing regions in the country, and that is thanks to this Government's investment in the transport infrastructure.

Adrian Sanders: May I point out to the Minister that the far south-west is not sharing in that economic growth, partly because it needs investment in transport schemes? I welcome this announcement because it releases money within the regional budget to complete some important road schemes such as the Kings Kerswell bypass. However, given that Stonehenge is of national and international significance, any road scheme that alleviates problems around that area should be paid for by the national taxpayer, not out of regional allocations.

Tom Harris: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that any road solution should be paid for at any cost—that the Government should write a blank cheque? When the scheme was first proposed, the original price was about £223 million, £70 million of which it was rightly suggested should be met by DCMS. That was correct because, as the hon. Gentleman says, Stonehenge is a matter of national cultural importance. However, given the amount of the increases over the past few years, does he seriously believe that no matter what the cost of such a scheme, the Government and the taxpayer should pay for it? If so, that is a fairly legitimate point of view, but it is not one that I—or, I suspect, the taxpayer—would share.

Tobias Ellwood: This is more than a disappointment—it shows 10 years of failure. It is not just a transport issue—it also affects tourism. Tourism is Britain's fifth largest industry, but the Government do not take it seriously. They are failing to harness the importance of this heritage site and major attraction. How many more years must we wait until we see an improvement to the Stonehenge area?

Tom Harris: Well, the hon. Gentleman has his press release.
	The planning permission that was given as part of the public inquiry included provision for a new visitor centre at Stonehenge. I understand that the current visitor centre is not particularly attractive, and I will work with DCMS and the Minister responsible for tourism, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking, to progress plans for an alternative site for a world-class tourism centre. I hope that that will be up and running before the Olympics.

Paul Holmes: Earlier this year, I had the privilege of spending a day touring the landscape around Stonehenge with the National Trust, which looks after most of that historic landscape, and I met representatives of English Heritage, which looks after the stones. This world heritage site is scarred, almost destroyed, by a busy A road passing a few yards away from the stones. It is a national disgrace and a national problem, and the national Government should be tackling it. I reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack): a Government who can spend almost twice as much money as this on a white elephant like the millennium dome should be investing in the single most important historic site in the whole of the UK.

Tom Harris: In the seven years to 2007-08, DFT spending on road and rail in the south-west more than doubled to £825 million. If the hon. Gentleman is saying, like the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), that no matter what the cost of the scheme the Liberal Democrats would meet it, I suspect that they are now regretting their policy of putting 1p on income tax.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business for the week commencing 10 December will be as follows:
	Monday 10 December—Second Reading of the Planning Bill.
	Tuesday 11 December—It is expected that there will be an oral statement on the children's plan, followed by a general debate on European affairs.
	Wednesday 12 December—Opposition Day [4th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "Northern Rock and the Banking System", followed by a debate entitled "The Military Covenant". Both debates arise on a Liberal Democrat motion.
	Thursday 13 December—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by remaining stages of the Crossrail Bill.
	Friday 14 December—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 17 December will be:
	Monday 17 December—It is expected that there will be an oral statement following the European Council, followed by Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.
	Tuesday 18 December—Motion on the Christmas recess Adjournment.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the future business.
	Later today, the Monetary Policy Committee will decide whether to reduce interest rates—

Chris Bryant: Now.

Theresa May: Now, as we speak. There is serious concern about the property market in the context of an economic slowdown and problems in the banking industry, so can next week's topical debate be on the housing market?
	Back in July, the Prime Minister told the House:
	"we seek...an all-party consensus on...new provisions for pre-charge detention"—[ Official Report, 25 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 843.]—
	that is, the 28-day issue. Yet without any consensus, the Home Secretary has leaked her plans to the media and released a paragraph-long excuse for a written statement. Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty says:
	"It seems more like politics than policy-making".
	Why has the Home Secretary not come to the House to make a proper oral statement so that Members can question her on her policy? Every week, the Leader of the House tells us that she puts Parliament first; every week her colleagues treat Parliament with disdain.
	The European Parliament has ruled that the United Kingdom is entitled to one more MEP. On the numbers, that seat should go to the west midlands, but it is rumoured that the Prime Minister wants to give it to Scotland for party political reasons. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the decision concerning which region gets the extra seat is based on fair representation, not party political calculation?
	Dave Hartnett, the acting chairman of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, yesterday accepted that the recent data breaches
	"indicate a wide systematic failure".
	There have been seven HMRC security breaches "of some significance" in the last two and a half years, but the Chancellor and the Prime Minister continue to hide behind their claim that there is no systematic failure. Why will they not take responsibility and get a grip? Will the Chancellor come back to the House to make a new statement in light of this new information?
	While Labour politicians debate ditching the national anthem and changing the Union flag, the Prime Minister is about to break his manifesto promise and sign us up to the renamed European constitution, without a referendum. May I add my support to the European Scrutiny Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), a Labour Member? The Committee says that
	"the matters raised should be debated on the Floor of the House before the Treaty is signed...we therefore hold the document under scrutiny".
	May we have a debate, in Government time, specifically on the treaty? Last week, the right hon. and learned Lady said that she wants to
	"reform and improve European scrutiny".—[ Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 444.]
	She can make a start here.
	Finally, it was reported this morning that Labour officials helped David Abrahams draw up covenants to hide his donations. Since the right hon. and learned Lady's performance last week, we have found out that she failed to declare a £40,000 loan to the Electoral Commission. However, she told the House that she
	"acted at all times within both the letter and the spirit of the law."—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 435.]
	I ask her again: when will she come to the House to make a full statement about her conduct and the lawbreaking in the Labour party?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady raised the question of the housing market. She will know that we are concerned that there should be more affordable housing to rent and buy. That is why we have introduced a Bill on housing that will increase the supply of housing for families who need it. I look forward to her supporting that Bill, and to all hon. Members ensuring that their housing supply can be improved in their local authorities. She also mentioned interest rates. She knows that under this Government interest rates have been kept low and stable, whereas under her Government they rose to 15 per cent. and people lost their homes because of negative equity.
	The right hon. Lady raised the question of the written ministerial statement that the Home Secretary issued to the House this morning, and the letter that she sent to the Home Affairs Committee. She knows that the Government's position remains that we are concerned to ensure the security of people in this country. That is absolutely essential. We are also concerned to ensure civil liberties and appropriate safeguards for everybody in this country. We are seeking an all-party consensus and we are having talks in order to reach agreement so that we can protect safety and ensure civil liberties.
	When the hon. Lady raises this question—[Hon. Members: "Right hon. Lady."] I am sorry. When the right hon. Lady raises the question, it strikes me that whatever we propose and whatever this House legislates about, defendants and subjects have the protection of the Human Rights Act; but if the Conservative party were in government, they would abolish it. The House awaits the Select Committee's report.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned a number of issues about the European Parliament and European affairs. My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House is having discussions on how we can do what we all agree we need to do: improve the scrutiny of European affairs. Indeed, the right hon. Lady has put forward 10 suggestions to that effect, and my hon. Friend has said that she has considered them and they are not all mad.  [ Laughter. ]

Chris Bryant: But some of them are.

Harriet Harman: Some of them are useful contributions to the debate, and I thank her for that.
	The right hon. Lady also mentioned party funding. I answered questions about that at business questions last week, the House considered it during an Opposition day debate on Tuesday, the Prime Minister answered questions about it on Wednesday and the House had a further opportunity to discuss it during a debate on standards in public life yesterday. We have had a great deal of discussion in this House, but we are yet to see the Tories returning to all-party talks, and I hope that they will do so now.

David Anderson: May we have a debate in this House on the report from Energywatch that shows that people who use prepayment meters spend on average £195 a year more than those who pay by direct debit? That is an attack on poor people.

Harriet Harman: I will take that as a suggestion for a topical debate.

Andrew Robathan: It is not topical.

Harriet Harman: It is topical; people cannot afford their heating when it gets colder. I will take that as a suggestion for a topical debate, and I thank my hon. Friend for making it.

Simon Hughes: I start by returning to the issue of detention without charge. Given the huge importance of the issue, and the clear opposition of Liberal Democrats, the Conservative party, many Members in the Labour party and other parties, the previous Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith, the Director of Public Prosecutions and Lord West, the Minister responsible for security—until he was sat on—will the Leader of the House insist that the Home Secretary comes to the House on Monday to make the oral statement that this issue merits? A written statement attached to documents in the Library that are complex as well as controversial is not an appropriate way for the Leader of the House to honour her obligation to the House; she said that Ministers would report to the House first and answer questions. She must insist that the Home Secretary does so.
	On a linked civil liberties issue, when will we have a debate on identity cards? Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, said yesterday in front of the Justice Committee:
	"Keeping this massive database with records of every time the card is swiped through a terminal is distinctly unattractive and would increase the risks."
	Surely the subject of identity cards, and the nonsensical Government policy of pursuing them, is appropriate for a Government debate or a topical one between now and the end of term.
	Given that the Information Commissioner also told the Justice Committee that, in the wake of the loss of 25 million names of benefit recipients and their families,
	"It is important that the law is changed to make security breaches of this magnitude a criminal offence",
	may we have a debate on the legal implications of the use and misuse of information? In particular, can the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions explain whether the same principles apply to Ministers for revealing information about funds as apply to the tens of thousands of people who are prosecuted by the Department for Work and Pensions for not declaring sums that they have received and who are convicted in the courts up and down the land?
	Lastly, may we have a debate soon—and then annually—on the relative position of Britain among the 30 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries? We recently came bottom in the league table of childhood happiness. We have been reported as dropping from seventh to 17th in our reading ability and from eighth to 24th in our maths ability. With 148 out of every 100,000 people in prison, we have the highest number of people in prison in the whole of western Europe. Why is it that on so many different occasions and different subjects Britain is now gaining the reputation of being one of the failing states of western Europe?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of the Home Secretary's giving information about a further proposal for consideration to deal with extended detention. If I think that information that should have been announced first to the House has been announced on "Today" and has then been the subject of an oral statement, or if major policy has been announced without reference to the House, I will not accept that situation. That is my commitment. However, on this occasion I do not think that it would have been right for me to say to the Home Secretary, "Come to the House and make an oral statement." No hon. Member tabled an urgent question, so clearly no one else in the House thought that there should be an oral statement. She has produced a written memorandum to the Select Committee and a written ministerial statement. The Home Secretary is very forthcoming to the House on these issues. She is a respecter of the House. She is not a spinner. She answers questions, and therefore I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that she has not respected the House and that I, as Leader of the House, should suggest that she come here. I simply do not accept that.
	The hon. Gentleman also talked about identity cards and asked for them to be chosen as a topic for debate. His party has just chosen two topics for debate next week. Neither is identity cards: one is Northern Rock while the other is the military. Yesterday, there was a debate on identity in Westminster Hall—

Simon Hughes: It was one of ours.

Harriet Harman: Indeed it was. The House has opportunities to discuss that important issue.
	The hon. Gentleman then launched off on to our being a failing state for children. My constituency is in the same borough as his, and is its neighbour. He will know, as all hon. Members do, of the huge change that there has been in the investment in children's education. He will know that every secondary school and primary school has had capital investment. He will know that there are 40,000 extra teachers and 100,000 extra teaching assistants. He will know that there are more nursery places for children and that more young people go into further and higher education. He will know that we are moving on to increase the education leaving age from 16 to 18. I do not know on which planet he is living when he says that there is a failing state for children. The Government have made children and education a priority and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman listens to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families when he sets out the children plan in the House next week.

Anne Moffat: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and the Prime Minister on the announcement that was made earlier today about a badge for land army girls. That is something that I have felt very passionate about. After the Bevin boys were rewarded, it was only right that the women who worked so hard during the war to keep the home fires burning and everybody fed should be honoured in the same way.

Harriet Harman: The whole House should recognise and pay tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend, without whom that would not have happened. It was right that she brought the subject to the attention of the House and relevant Ministers and that she insisted and argued cogently that the efforts of the members of the Women's Land Army should be recognised, just as those of the Bevin boys have been. Justice has been done because of her efforts, and I want to thank her.

Nicholas Winterton: When does the Leader of the House intend to come to the House to make public the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body? The Government have had the report for more than six months. Members' pay—I am concerned about hon. Members in all parties—is falling further and further behind. Is it not time that the Government came to the House, presented the report and allowed the House to debate the recommendations?

Harriet Harman: It is St. Nicholas's day today, so I was expecting the hon. Gentleman to get to his feet. We will bring forward the debate for discussion, but I cannot say that it will be debated before Christmas.

Jim Cunningham: May we have a debate on the plight of the Palestinians, particularly regarding the new middle east peace initiatives?

Harriet Harman: I know that that is a priority for the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. I shall take that as a suggestion for a topical debate; the whole House is concerned about it.

Peter Viggers: Will the Leader of the House find time at an early date for a debate on an issue that those directly concerned find the most important of all, namely the availability of the drug Alimta for the treatment of mesothelioma? Is the Leader of the House aware that the drug has been approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and is available through some primary care trusts, but not through others who have taken legal action to prevent the requirement that they should use it? Does she agree that the debate might allow opinion from both sides of the House to bring pressure to bear so that the intolerable situation can be drawn to a conclusion?

Harriet Harman: I will bring the question that the hon. Gentleman has raised to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. There will be Health questions before Christmas, so I shall give my right hon. Friend notice and perhaps the hon. Gentleman can seek to raise that point then.

Tony Lloyd: Further to the helpful answer that my right hon. and learned Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) about the potential for a topical debate on the differential between the charge for those who pay for gas and electricity by direct debit and the higher charge for those who pay by other means, which is effectively a tax on the poor, will she add to that debate the need for the same consideration of telephone charges? Those who do not pay by direct debit can be charged up to £15 more. In the modern world, although the situation is not exactly the same as that for gas and electricity, the telephone is now a vital service for many people, particularly the elderly alone in their homes.

Harriet Harman: I will take the suggestion for a topical debate. On the question of the higher charges that are paid by those who can least afford them, in order both to stay in touch by using the telephone with standing charges and to buy fuel, my hon. Friend will be aware that we have done a great deal to lift the income of pensioners and families with children. We know that that is still an issue, and I shall bring it forward as a suggestion for consideration for a topical debate.

Pete Wishart: May we have an early statement from the Home Secretary about her intention to renege on honouring the police pay settlement in full? In it perhaps she could congratulate the Scottish Government, who have made clear their intention to honour the commitment in full and pay the Scottish Police force what they are entitled to. Does that not contrast the difference between the two Governments and suggest why the Scottish National party is 11 points ahead of Labour in Scotland?

Harriet Harman: I think the House will know that since the Government came into office there are more police than there were before and that they are better paid—and rightly so. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Home Secretary issued a written ministerial statement on police pay this morning.

Lyn Brown: Following on from the question that the hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) asked about Alimta, I am honoured to have been made patron of the East London Mesothelioma Society. I am proud of that. May we have a topical debate on the cancer reform strategy? We have not yet debated it.

Harriet Harman: That is a good suggestion for a topical debate. Our cancer plan has meant that mortality rates from cancer have fallen by 17 per cent. However, we all agree that we can do more, through not only treatment and caring for those who have cancer but early detection. The cancer reform plan is determined to do that. I therefore agree that it would be useful to have a debate on it in the House.

William Cash: The Leader of the House has vital functions in defending Parliament on behalf of Parliament as whole. Does she accept that the European Scrutiny Committee report on the reform treaty is highly critical of the Government? Does she also accept that, as the Chairman of the Committee said last week, the report warrants discussion on a substantive motion on the Floor of the House before the treaty is signed, that the Government are not offering that and that the Leader of the House is therefore in derogation of her duties, which is a disgrace?

Harriet Harman: There will be a debate before the treaty is signed and a statement afterwards. The hon. Gentleman knows that we will spend many days on the Floor of the House debating the matter—we have set that out in our legislative programme.
	I look forward to concluding the institutional changes that are necessary as a result of enlargement. It is important to revert to and stay focused on the agenda of the contribution that our membership of the European Union can make to our economy and our efforts to tackle climate change and transnational crime. I know that many hon. Members want to spend a huge amount of time discussing the structures—I acknowledge that structures are important—but many more people want to discuss the way in which we, as EU members, can improve matters for people in this country and Europe as a whole.

Gisela Stuart: May I ask the Leader of the House to go further on the debate on the European Union on Tuesday? It will be the last time that the House has a chance to discuss issues before the Prime Minister is expected to sign the treaty of Lisbon. Will she ensure that an up-to-date version of the text of the treaty is available to hon. Members on Tuesday because that is the last chance to debate it?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I will bring to the Foreign Secretary's attention.

David Howarth: Returning to the detention of terrorist suspects without charge, may we have a debate specifically about the separation of powers? The Home Secretary's proposal appeared to involve votes by hon. Members effectively on whether individuals should be detained. Frankly, that is repugnant. It smacks of the institutions of the French revolution, such as the Committee of General Security. Is no constitutional principle safe in the Government's hands?

Harriet Harman: We want to ensure that people are physically safe from the threat of terrorism. That is what we want to make sure is safe in the Government's hands. I share Liberal Democrats' concerns about civil liberties and I want to be sure that proper safeguards exist. However, the absolute bottom line is that we must ensure that we have the right provisions so that people in this country are safe and so that, if terrorists are suspected and arrested, they are not allowed to slip through our hands and perpetrate a terrible crime. I hope that Liberal Democrat Members will join us in acknowledging that. We are all concerned about safeguards and ensuring that the Home Secretary, the judiciary and the House have the right role. All those matters will be discussed.

Dennis Skinner: Could the Leader of the House take it into account that, whenever a request is made to debate MPs' salaries, it always comes from the Tory side? Most Labour Members believe that you can't starve on £60,000 a year. If the taxpayer's money is to be spent wisely, let us use it for such things as free personal care for the elderly in nursing homes. That is much more important than the inflated MPs' pay that the Tories always demand.

Harriet Harman: I look forward to my hon. Friend's contribution to the debate on the SSRB report when I can present it to the House.

Patrick Cormack: Has the Leader of the House reflected further on choosing subjects for topical debate? It is now clear that the Standing Orders of the House do not place an obligation on her to make the choice. Would it not be fairer if the choice were made by Mr. Speaker or by ballot?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Modernisation Committee—[Hon. Members: "Just say no."] I think I am probably saying no. The Modernisation Committee proposed that some Government time—we are not considering Opposition day debates—should be used to allow the Chamber to discuss issues of topical importance. The Committee suggested that that should be done through the usual channels, although the debates were to be an opportunity for Back Benchers. The Government gave their response and we passed Standing Order No. 24A, which simply provides that the topic will be chosen by the Leader of the House. I issued a written ministerial statement to outline my criteria for subjects for the debates. They are: the subject should be topical; the House has not had an opportunity to debate it; it is a matter of public policy; it is a matter of public concern, and it is of international, national or regional importance.
	It is early days. We have had only three topical debates. We need to reflect on the matter in the new year in light of our experience of the debates, and ascertain whether we need to change the process and the Standing Orders.
	However, one of my concerns is that the topical debates are supposed to be Back-Bench debates but, because Front Benchers make so many interventions and have many interesting things to say, many Back-Bench colleagues have not been able to speak in the important debates. I therefore want to consider how we ensure that there is more time for Back Benchers in the topical debates.

Dan Norris: Norton Hill secondary school in my constituency, under the headship of Peter Beaven, has just had an Ofsted report. The school was deemed outstanding under each of the headings under which it was assessed. That is a highly unique status. However, although schools and pupils throughout the country have attained much better results under a Labour Government in the past 10 years, many pupils, especially those from more modest backgrounds who are in the first generation to go to university, still do not aspire to the very highest and most traditional universities. They avoid applying to, for example, Oxford or Cambridge. May we have an early debate on how to encourage those young people, who are now achieving terrific grades, to aspire to the very highest standards in our land?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I congratulate all those—the head, the teaching team, the parents and pupils—involved in Norton Hill secondary school and acknowledge my hon. Friend's support for it. However, his comments reflect the revolution in our expectations of the number of young people whom we want to go into further and higher education. The Tories were happy for only a few young people to go on to further and higher education. We believe two things: first, parents want the best for their children; secondly, in a globalised market, our economy needs the children to be the best, so higher education is essential.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. Eleven hon. Members are standing. I want to take you all, so let us have one brief supplementary from each hon. Member.

Si�n James: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Andrew MacKay: rose

Mr. Speaker: You are in the queue; do not worry about it.

Si�n James: Cyberbullying is of major concern to many people. Several constituents have approached me, expressing anxiety about incidents of happy slapping, which have been uploaded on to the internet. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider a debate on cyberbullying?

Harriet Harman: I will; and I will also suggest that it would be good for my hon. Friend to contribute to the new guidance on bullying that will be sent to education authorities and all schools, on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is currently consulting.

Andrew MacKay: Should not the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions make a statement next week about the future of Mr. Paul Myners, the chairman of the personal accounts delivery authority, in the light of his controversial remarks on last week's Question Time and, as importantly, the fact that, as we have now learned, he made substantial contributions to the Prime Minister's leadership election campaign, even though we were told at the time of his appointment that he had made no political donations whatever?

Harriet Harman: I watched the programme to which the right hon. Gentleman refers and I could not see anything controversial about Paul Myners's remarks. He said that we had an exceptionally strong economy with steady growth, which was down to the expert management of the Chancellor at the time, who has now turned into a first-rate Prime Minister. I could not see anything about that to disagree with.

Madeleine Moon: May we have a debate on whether people should have to opt out of kidney transplantation, rather than opt in to it? My constituent, Mark Schofield, recently travelled to the Philippines in an attempt to buy a kidney for 40,000, when the one donated by his mother Jean failed. We are now at the stage where 380 people in Wales are waiting for kidney transplants. Could we consider moving the situation forward, to an opt-out rather than an opt-in?

Harriet Harman: I will draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. We all know that transplantation of a donated organ can transform the life of the recipient. We also all know that many people suffer while they are waiting for a transplant or even die before it becomes available. We know, too, that relatives of many people who would be happy to donate their organs often do not receive a request on their behalf. I will bring that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Michael Penning: Tuesday morning will be the second anniversary of the Buncefield disaster, which destroyed many parts of my constituency. Sadly, two years on, we have had just one statement, on the Monday immediately after, but not one written or oral statement to the House. We have had planning blight; an inquiry is being held behind closed doors; the water table is contaminated; and now disfigured animals are being born, which the Government's chief scientist has been informed of. Can we have the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs come here to tell us what is going on in my community and what is going to happen at Buncefield?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue previously. It is an important issue for his constituency, but it also raises national concerns. I take the points that he has made and will raise them with the relevant Ministers. I will write to him and place a copy of the letter in the Library, and hopefully we will see further action on that.

David Taylor: Notwithstanding our Government's generally good record on animal policy, there is growing public concern that unfinished business remains in areas such as animal husbandry and animals in the laboratory. It is for those reasons that a number of us tabled early-day motion 480 yesterday, on a cross-party basis, which calls for an animal protection commission to drive forward improvements in that area.
	 [That this House notes the growing body of scientific evidence showing animals to have complex mental and emotional lives; considers all vertebrates and possibly some invertebrates to be conscious, feeling beings with an interest in living, avoiding suffering and experiencing pleasure; acknowledges that each animal has inherent value and is worthy of serious moral consideration; considers respect for animals to be indicative of the level of civilisation; is concerned that policy-making is led by industries tha t inevitably compromise animals' welfare and interests, and thus the most essential interests of animals and the public's concern for their protection are given insufficient considerati on; endorses the Prime Minister' s call for constitutional reform that  ' entrusts more power to Pa rliament and the British people' ; notes that there is no Government body whose primary purpose is to protect the interests of animals in policy-making; and calls upon the Government to establish an Animal Protection Commission or similar body, answerable to Parliament via a Minister, with a remit which includes the ongoing examination of the ethical status and rights of animals and how they are affected by policy-making, the facilitation of genuine public participation throughout policy processes which affect animals, and the development of a cross-Government agenda for animal protection.]
	Could the Leader of the House take this as a submission for a debate on that early-day motion?

Harriet Harman: We recently had legislation on animal health, and I know that there is concern throughout the House. While we continue to have farming and the opportunity for experimentation on animals for necessary medical research, there is always a concern about animal safety. I will bring my hon. Friend's point to the attention of my right hon. Friends the relevant Ministers.

Jo Swinson: One year on from the horrific murders in Ipswich, can we have a debate on what the Government are doing to improve the safety of vulnerable prostitute women?

Harriet Harman: I will take that as a suggestion for a topical debate. Ministers across Government are concerned to ensure that women are not vulnerable. Many of the women involved in prostitution are brought here from abroad, and we have raised the issue of human trafficking in the European Council. Also, many of the women on the streets suffer from alcohol or drug abuse and mental health problems. I shall bring the issue to the attention of my hon. Friends, and perhaps the hon. Lady could raise it in a Westminster Hall debate.

Jim Sheridan: Can we have a debate on the recent decision by the Law Lords to deny compensation to victims of asbestos-related disease? My right hon. and learned Friend may be aware that the Scottish Parliament has committed itself to overturning that decision. I sincerely hope that it is genuine in its endeavours. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that if the Scottish Parliament is successful, the same effort and commitment will be applied throughout the UK for victims of asbestos-related diseases?

Harriet Harman: I agree with my hon. Friend's point, particularly on the effect of the recent House of Lords judgment on pleural plaques, which is being studied. We want to do everything that we can not only to prevent people from suffering from industrial disease, but to compensate and support those who have tragically had their lives ruined simply by working in unhealthy workplaces.

Stewart Jackson: When we next consider party funding in this place, will the Leader of the House give consideration to the propriety or otherwise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's appearance this week at a Labour fundraising event hosted by Deutsche bank, which is a party to the consortium hoping to take over Northern Rock? Does she think that there is a possible conflict of interest in that issue?

Harriet Harman: I am sure that there is no conflict of interest. The appearance that I would like to see is that of the Conservative party at the all-party talks.

Robert Goodwill: May we have a debate on the provision of post offices here in the Palace of Westminster? Why do pensioners in the villages of Sandsend, Ruswarp and Fyling Thorpe in my constituency have to travel more than 3 miles to a post office, whereas other pensioners such as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) have the benefit of three post offices within 100 yd?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, which is a concern throughout the House. He will know that up to 2009 there will be 1.7 billion-worth of extra investment in post offices. This is a time of big change in post offices. They are important to local communities, and there was a debate in Westminster Hall either last week or earlier this week, so the issue is constantly debated in the House.

John Bercow: Further to the highly pertinent inquiry from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), may I ask the right hon. and learned Lady why the long-awaited and much delayed report by the Senior Salaries Review Body cannot be published and debated next week? Given that the matter has been raised several times with her, not least on 5 and 26 July, on 11, 18 and 25 October and on 8 and 15 November, by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, including the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), would she concede that it is high time we discuss the matter, that it would be intolerable to slip out the report quietly with Government recommendations during the Christmas recess and that she would of course contemplate doing no such thing?

Harriet Harman: I would contemplate doing no such thing; the hon. Gentleman can be assured that there will be no slipping out of the report over the Christmas recess. I know that the House is eager to see the proposals and to debate and vote on them, and there will be an opportunity for that in the new year.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the recent local government finance settlement, so that we could discuss two things in particular? One is the severe

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I am mistaken, but if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the local government finance settlement, that is the next statement coming up. We have a Minister coming to discuss that matter, and the hon. Gentleman might catch the Deputy Speaker's eye at that stage. However, perhaps he is talking about something else.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We are indeed about to get a local government settlement. Can the Leader of the House make special representations in that settlement, so that we secure one that represents all the unfunded items that the Government keep loading on local authorities, which in turn will increase the council tax, which will have a severe impact on some of the poorest in our society? Perhaps the Minister for Local Government, who is standing beside you, Mr. Speaker, will take that into account.

Mr. Speaker: The appropriate Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mark Harper: The Leader of the House will know that there has been confusion about the arrangements for the Government Equalities Office. She will also know that I wrote to the Prime Minister about this matter. On 8 November, the Prime Minister replied to say that he would arrange for the Leader of the House to reply to me directly. I know that the right hon. and learned Lady takes the issue of timely correspondence very seriously, but I have yet to have a reply from her. Might she be able to indulge me with a reply before Christmas?

Harriet Harman: The answer to that is yes. I have received the hon. Gentleman's correspondence, and he will get a reply this afternoon. In regard to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), I wonder whether he was practising his question before putting it to the relevant Minister.

Peter Bone: Mrs. Carter, a lovely lady in my constituency, suffers from spinal stenosis and is in a lot of pain, if not agony, most of the time. She normally goes to Northampton general hospital four times a year for treatment to alleviate the pain. The last time she went was in June, but she has now been told that she cannot go again until the middle of January, although she is suffering in agony. The reason for the change is apparently so that the hospital can see new patients first. With apologies to Mark Twain, would it be possible to have a debate in Government time entitled  Lies, damned lies and NHS statistics?

Harriet Harman: Obviously, it is important that all hospitals and health services have the right processes and give the right priority to patients. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point that should be the subject not of a debate in the House but of a complaint to the relevant trust or local primary care trust. It is a matter for them, rather than for the House. I know that the hon. Gentleman regularly raises questions on the health treatment of his constituents, and I therefore hope that he will strongly back the extra investment that we have put into the health service in his area over the past 10 years.

Local Government Finance

John Healey: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement about local government finance in England. For the first time ever, this is a three-year settlement. I am today able to confirm for each authority for each of the next three years not only allocations of formula grant but allocations of the new working neighbourhoods fund and 60 other specific grants, from eight Government Departments.
	In total, Government revenue funding for local authority services will be, in the years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, 70.4 billion, 73.5 billion and 76.7 billion. These are increases of 4 per cent., 4.4 per cent. and 4.3 per cent. respectively. This continues the sustained real-terms increases for local government under this Government. By the end of this comprehensive spending review period, local government will have received a real-terms grant increase of 45 per cent. since 1997.
	Formula grant, which includes revenue support grant, redistributed business rates and the police grant, will total in each year 27.5 billion, 28.2 billion and 29 billion, representing increases of 3.6 per cent., 2.8 per cent. and 2.6 per cent. respectively. Every authority will receive a formula grant increase in every year. In addition, we expect of local government the same 3 per cent. efficiency savings each year as the rest of the public sector. Delivering that would mean that councils would have an extra 4.9 billion over the spending review period, which they could use to improve services or to cut council tax pressures.
	We have worked closely with local government and its associations over the past two years to assess cost pressures and the scope for efficiencies. This settlement takes account in particular of the pressures on adult social care and on waste. Local government told us that it wanted certainty, flexibility, equity and stability in funding, all of which are delivered by this settlement. On certainty, we are providing a three-year settlement, not just for the core grant but for 61 other central Government grants and for regeneration funds. On flexibility, we have pooled 38 of the 61 specific grants into the new area-based grant, worth 4.7 billion by 2010, three quarters of which was previously ring-fenced but will be no longer. We are also transferring 900 million a year from other specific grants into formula grant. Local government also wanted less bureaucracy from central Government, so we have radically streamlined the new performance framework for local government, with a single set of under 200 national indicators, down from about 1,200.
	On equity, we consulted local government over the summer on making the method of grant distribution fairer. My conclusions are set out in the further consultation paper that we are publishing today, but let me highlight these points. Following a major review, we were able to introduce a new and improved formula in each of the areas of social care in 2006. For the past two years, we have been damping two of those formulae. I now propose to end the additional damping and fully to implement the social services formulae. The overall system of grant floors, which we will retain, will ensure that that unwinds quite gradually over this and the next spending review periods.
	I also propose to make the system fairer to authorities with a relatively low council tax base. Those authorities will have much greater difficulty than others in coping with spending pressures. I therefore propose to increase by 2 per cent. the proportion of the blocks for relative needs and relative resource within the available total.
	We have made significant progress with regeneration in many of the most disadvantaged areas of the country. The new 1.5 billion working neighbourhoods fund replaces the neighbourhood renewal fund and builds in the Department for Work and Pensions deprived areas fund to create a single fund at local level. As we set out in the sub-national review, we are concentrating that funding on tackling worklessness in the most deprived areas. Sixty-six local authorities will receive funding from the working neighbourhoods fund for three years, and the 21 authorities that currently receive neighbourhood renewal funding but do not qualify for the new fund will get two years of transitional funding.
	On stability, we consulted on aspects of the area cost adjustment. I propose some changes, to reflect more recent evidence, in the weights given to labour and business rates costs. However, I have decided not to implement any changes in the geography of the area cost adjustment. The consultation proposals covered only a few areas, and the financial turbulence involved did not seem justified by the relatively minor refinements that would result. I therefore intend to take advantage of the next three years to conduct a full review of the area cost adjustment, which will begin after the House has debated and approved this settlement.
	I also propose no change to the expenditure base of the formula for fire and rescue. I have concluded that the last few years have been an untypical period for the service, making spending patterns an uncertain base for a formula. Again, I propose to conduct a thorough review of the formula. That will begin in the new year. Grant floors damping is the main way in which we ensure stability of funding for councils over time. Though some argued for the opposite, we will continue with the system of floors, which ensure that every authority receives a formula grant increase in every year of the comprehensive spending review period. In setting floor levels, I have struck a balance between providing an increase for all authorities and allowing formula changes to come through. For each of the three years the floors will be: for fire and rescue authorities and shire district councils, 1 per cent., 0.5 per cent. and 0.5 per cent.; for authorities with responsibilities for education and social services, 2 per cent., 1.75 per cent. and 1.5 per cent.; and for police authorities, 2.5 per cent. in each year.
	To deliver this three-year settlement, we need to use the best and latest data available on a consistent basis across all authorities and we need to deploy it at the time we calculate the three-years figures. For population, those are the population projections produced by the Office for National Statistics in September, which take advantage of improvements in the way in which migrants are counted. The majority of the councils in our consultation wanted us to use those figures.
	In recent years, however, the UK has seen significant demographic changes, not least in the pattern of people's mobility. Those changes clearly create new measurement challenges. We are determined to build on recent improvements, while recognising that there is no single, simple or swift solution to those challenges. I can confirm today that the national statistician will now bring together central and local government to work on ways to improve population survey data and to make greater use of administrative data.
	Ten successive years of above-inflation grant increases from this Governmentcontinued throughout this spending review periodplus tough capping action have helped bring down council tax increases. Keeping council tax under control remains a high priority for the Government. We expect the average council tax increase in England to be substantially below 5 per cent. next year. Let me be clear: we will not hesitate to use our capping powers as necessary to protect council tax payers from excessive increases.
	This is a tight settlement, but it is fair and affordable. It delivers the certainty, the flexibility, the equity and the stability that local government wanted. We know councils are capable of innovating, managing change and improving efficiency without having a disproportionate impact on their council tax payers. The challenge and onus now is on councils to demonstrate the leadership to deliver just that. I commend the statement to the House.

Alistair Burt: I begin by welcoming the Minister's courtesy in sending me a copy of his statement. The technicalities of such a statement do not come alive in an instant, so it is appreciated when we have a little time to prepare. There was a bit of a glitch in getting the statement to us, but we will not make too much of that.
	The Minister, who is a fair man, will know that his statement today will have been heard with more than disappointment in town halls up and down the landnot to mention the massive silence behind himand not just by councillors themselves, but by the communities they represent and those who will be affected by what he has said and what he has not said today. Will he confirm that he has just announced another round of inflation-busting council tax increases for the long-suffering taxpayer? Over the last decade, we have predicted rises in council tax, which successive Ministers have dismissed at the Dispatch Box. Each year, the accuracy of our predictions has comfortably outscored the Government's.
	Does the Minister agree with the leader of the cross-party Local Government Association who said this morning that he was estimating inflation-jumping 4 to 4.5 per cent. increases? Will he confirm that the three-year settlement means an extra 208 on the bill of a band D homea whopping increase of 122 per cent. under Labour? That will push council tax at band D through the 1,500 barrier by the next general election. I do not think that the Minister, who at the conclusion of his statement seemed rather proud of 10 years of Labour, has that much to be proud about. Is he aware of a survey released by a leading building society today showing that under this Government council tax has become the most unpopular tax in Britaina pretty competitive league to top?
	Conservative Members welcome the move to three-year funding, which this statement represents. Making this change must be helpful in planning budgets, but it also makes crystal clear the precipice that the Government are pushing local authorities over. The good news about councils having some certainty in their budgets is balanced by the bad news that they now know what it is they have to be certain about: a front-loaded increase of 1.5 per cent. this year, with rises of only 0.7 per cent. and 0.6 per cent. for the following two years at best, or just 1 per cent., 0.1 per cent. and a cut of 0.1 per cent. if private finance initiative commitments are removed. This statement is a cunningly worded invitation for reduced services from councils and higher bills for taxpayers. Does the Minister acknowledge that, tough as the first year is, the real screw and ratchet is applied in years two and three?
	For young and old, and especially for those in receipt of elderly care and those paying council tax, today's statement marks a further chapter in the long, slow but certain betrayal of people's hopes and expectations from this Government. They will listen not just with disappointment, but with real anger as the small print unfolds in classic Labour fashion over the next few days and weeks.
	The headline 1 per cent. increase in real terms over the next three years will be only the first meaningless figure to fall. Will the Minister confirm that that figure bears no relation to the cost pressures being suffered in, for example, adult social services, where expected real-terms expenditure growth appears to be double the funding increase provided? The gradual unwinding of controls on social services spending that the Minister speaks of in his statement does not address the urgency of the problem and will leave floor authorities in London and the south-east much worse off. Is the Minister aware that one head of social services has told the Local Government Association that these pressures require a 4.6 per cent. real-terms increase, and, tellingly, that the service provided by that council is now
	on the edge of human rights and dignity levels?
	Other services such as waste and highways are running similarly ahead of the measure of inflation used. Will the Minister introduce a measure of inflation relevant to the services provided by local authorities and use that measure instead? Will he confirm that the Government are cutting the amount of funding given to the local authorities business growth incentive schemea cut of 850 million over the next three years? Is that not just a back-door way of forcing councils to raise the money through new supplementary business rates, increasing the burden of taxation on firms? Have the Government any awareness of what is happening to shops and businesses out there on the high street and how these rises will damage them?
	We acknowledge some limited progress towards allowing more apparent local control over budgets through the release from ring-fencing and other controls of some 5 billion by 2010-11, but does the Minister agree that once again there is sleight of hand as the money is being shifted into an opaque pot called area-based grant, with a say not only for a council, but for other public bodies and Government's own regional offices? Can he confirm that on table 2 of specifics and general grants 2010-11, the area-based grant actually drops by 2.4 per cent.? Given that this grant has been trumpeted as an important new initiative, why is there to be a significant reduction?
	The Lyons review, about which we have heard much in previous statements, but nothing at all today, said that
	an independent and authoritative voice is needed to provide better information on funding to inform the public and parliament about the impact of new burdens on local government and the evidence of future pressures.
	Michael Lyons said that because he felt an unanswered question was undermining public confidence in local government. Who is really responsible for the rises in council tax: is it the council or is it the Government? Each blames the other, so with the public losing out in the tit-for-tat discussion, Lyons proposed that we should tackle this with a simple, transparent mechanism. Why is there nothing in the statement about that and why is no initiative being taken?
	We have come to learn that there are frequently reasons why the Government choose not to reveal information to the publicusually because people will not like what they are not being told. Is it not the case that the Government have chosen to dismiss this recommendation out of hand, because they know the answer to the question about who is responsible for nearly doubling council tax during their time in office? It is a case of Best when we are putting up taxes; best when we are blaming others; best when we are Labour [Interruption.] I will get better back-up next year.
	What representations has the Minister received about the new national concessionary fares schememerely the latest example of a national idea underfunded by this Government? Does he realise that the scheme makes financial sense for councils only if no passengers apply for it?
	Why is the Minister only now bringing together local and national Government to discuss population movement and migration? This phenomenon has been leading to unacceptable strain on key public services such as schools and social services. Why has nothing been done, apart from the setting up of a meeting?
	The Secretary of State

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

John Healey: It is inflation-busting grant rises that I have announced today, not inflation-busting council tax rises. I am proud of the 10 years of a Labour Government. I am proud of the commitment that we have given to local government. I am proud of the fact that, to date, local government has received a 39 per cent. real-terms increase in funding from central Government, and I am proud of the fact that that is in stark contrast to the 7 per cent. real-terms cut that local government had to endure for the four years of the previous Government, before 1997.
	This is a tight settlement. It is a tight settlement for local government, and it is a tight settlement for central Government. But there are areas of central Government, including work and pensions, revenue and customs and enterprise, which have experienced year-on-year cuts, not the year-on-year rises that I have been able to announce for local government today.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of specific questions. Let me try to answer them. He asked whether I had heard from the heads of social services departments, and quoted one in particular. Let me quote the response of their representative body to the comprehensive spending review. The Association of Directors of Social Services said:
	Today's CSR announcement is clear evidence that the Department of Health has truly recognised the importance of social care...today's figures and settlement show that the vital contribution our social care services make to the overall wellbeing of so many hundreds and thousands of older people is beginning to win the recognition it deserves.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the local authority business growth incentive. I introduced it from the Treasury, and we could not have been clearer from the start that it was a three-year scheme that we would review and seek to build into the mainstream funding systemwhich we will do over the spending review period, and for which purpose 150 million is allocated over that period.
	The area-based grant is a larger fund than the current area fund. As a result of my proposals, more funding streams will go through it. Each will be a single payment made each month to local authorities, and all will be un-ring-fenced.
	I was disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman's grudging comments on concessionary travel. I would have expected him to welcome the fact that 11 million pensioners and disabled people will benefit from free travel. I was also disappointed that he did not recognise that we are providing the fundingover 200 million in each of the coming yearsand doing what local government wanted by paying it as a specific grant rather than through the formula.
	The settlement builds on our strong track record of commitment to and funding for local government over the past 10 years, which is extended further through this spending review period, but it is not just about cash. Local government asked for certainty, and we have delivered it. Local government asked for greater stability, and we have delivered it. Local government asked for greater flexibility, and we are delivering that too.
	Finally, let me return to the point with which the hon. Gentleman began: his council tax rise predictions. There is a certain regular choreography about the annual settlements. We have heard before from the Opposition their predictions of settlements and their impact on council tax. In 2004 the hon. Gentleman's boss, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), predicted a 6.7 per cent. increase; the increase was 4.2 per cent. The following year he predicted a 7.1 per cent. increase; the increase was 4.5 per cent. I could not find any predictions for 2006, and I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have learnt his lessonbut the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) obviously has not.
	Increased funding and capping action have delivered three of the four lowest council tax rises in the past three years since council tax was introduced in 1993. That combinationreal increases in funding for local government, and a determination to take tough capping action as necessarywill continue over the next three years.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. A great many hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. There is business to follow this, so I am minded to ask for a single brief question and a short answer from each of them. More hon. Members may then be successful.

Frank Field: Do the Government accept that their failure to implement the social services formula fully has resulted in Wirral metropolitan borough council losing 8 million a year? Can the Minister guarantee that despite the other changes that he has announced, Wirral will gain that 8 million in each of the next three years?

John Healey: My right hon. Friend follows these matters in detail, and I am disappointed that he has not recognised and welcomed my announcement that we will fully implement the formula and remove the double damping. He may be interested to know that the formula grant increases for his local authority will be 5.1 per cent., 3.7 per cent. and 3.4 per cent. over the next three years, and that next year alone Wirral will receive 24.5 million extra in central Government grant.

Tom Brake: I start by thanking the Minister for providing a copy of his statement in advancebut I am afraid that that is where the thank yous finish. There were no surprises in the statement, just bad news. Social care, teachers' salaries and equal pay remain underfunded, while capping and the dreaded council tax remain in place. There was an opportunity to reform the council tax completely and replace it with a tax based on people's ability to pay, but that opportunity was squandered, and the most unfair tax of all continues to exist. Council tax, which in the past 11 years has increased by 86 per cent. in the Minister's constituency and by nearly 60 per cent. in that of the Secretary of State, will continue to hit the most vulnerable hardest, and to rise at a rate above the rate of inflation.
	I welcome the fact that there has been a start at reversing the trend towards greater ring-fencing, which has accelerated under the Labour Government. I also welcome the cut in performance indicators, and the stability provided by the three-year settlement. That, however, does not outweigh the bad things in the statement.
	Let me ask the Minister three specific questions. The Government have at long last recognised that migration is an issue. Can the Minister say when he expects the national statistician to produce proposals that will enable migration figures to be taken into account more rapidly in the allocation of grant? Will he confirm what I think he saidthat he will ensure that any funding formula changes take account of the fact that the metropolitan fire and rescue services deal with the most vulnerable and deprived inner-city areas, with all the associated costs? Finally, what real average increase in council tax does he expect in the next financial year?
	I regret the fact that the Minister is still observing the pretence that local government Ministers come to the House dressed in Santa costumes to deliver bountiful settlements that will pay for the turkey and the trimmings. They do not, and he did not today. This settlement might just about pay for a battery chicken, but it will not even cover the cost of the gas needed to cook it.

John Healey: Where does one begin, Madam Deputy Speaker? The vulnerable in our system are, of course, protected by council tax benefit, whereas the same is not true of the hon. Gentleman's party's proposals for a local income tax. The Liberal Democrats will not tell us how they will calculate the local income tax and they will not tell us who it will hit, but the risk is that there will be big increases for the working population, who will not be protected as they are at present. Sir Michael Lyons recognised those flaws, which is why he did not recommend the implementation of a local income tax. I am quite sure that when we see the detail of the Liberal Democrats' proposals they will not add up, because the Liberal Democrats' sums never do.
	Let me turn to the three questions the hon. Gentleman asked. On migration, I will send him a copy of a relevant report, as he might not have seen it. The national statistician set up and led a taskforce looking into how we can improve the analysis of migration figures, which reported in 2006. She will now lead action, involving local and central Government, on ways to implement those improvements, through, for instance, improving survey data and the greater use of administrative data. On the fire and rescue service, the hon. Gentleman is concerned about inner-urban areas and I hoped he would recognise that my decision not to rebase the formula will be of assistance in that regard, but he did not. On council tax levels, the hon. Gentleman will understand that, quite properly, they are set by local councils: it is for local councils to determine those levels. We expect them to be substantially below 5 per cent., and we will take tough capping action in the new year if that is necessary.

Neil Turner: I congratulate my hon. Friend on scrapping the double damping, which was iniquitous, immoral and had no intellectual basis; that is of great benefit to many people in our constituencies. Will he confirm that as Conservative-controlled councils such as Havering and Redbridge in London will benefit from that, this is nothing to do with a north-south divide, but is actually about making sure that the money follows the need, so that councils such as mine will be able to tackle the inequalities that still exist in our country?

John Healey: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. He is a former local government finance chief, he chairs the group of SIGOMASpecial Interest Group of Municipal Authorities within the Local Government AssociationMPs, and I know how closely he follows these matters. He is absolutely right to say that there is not a north-south divide. It is clear from the figures for this settlement and the total grant that there are bigger variations within regions than there are between regions. He might be interested to know that the increases in formula grant for Wigan are set to be 5.7 per cent., 3.7 per cent. and 3.1 per cent. If Wigan, like other local councils, achieves the efficiency savings that we expect, next year alone it will have an extra 7 million with which either to improve services or to keep council tax pressures under control; I have already stressed that point.

George Young: Does the Minister accept that the quotation from the Association of Directors of Social Services that he read out simply does not represent the position in counties such as Hampshire, which are spending much more than their formula grant on adult services? Does he also recognise that because of factors such as demography and the growing cost of care packages, intervention by social services authorities will increasingly be restricted to emergencies and life-threatening situations?

John Healey: We have worked closely with local government over two years to analyse the pressures, and we have identified with them in particular the pressures on adult social care. They are recognised in the level of rises for local government. The right hon. Gentleman will note that authorities with social services and social care responsibilities have relatively higher rises than other types of authority. If he looks at the figures and the small print, he will also note that there is a significant increase in Department of Health funding specifically for adult social care. That will rise on average by up to 10 per cent. across the three-year period. That means that over the spending review period there will be an extra 300 million for adult social care and for addressing some of the problems that authorities such as the right hon. Gentleman's local one face in dealing with the pressures that undoubtedly exist.

Brian Iddon: Has my hon. Friend looked at the impact on our decent homes policy of the withdrawal of the rental constraint allowance in the housing subsidy draft determination? This morning, Bolton has calculated that its arm's length management organisation will lose approximately 7 million in the coming years. It was on target to meet its decent homes standard by 2010, but I am afraid that if these calculations are accurate, this announcement will put the decent homes standard in jeopardy.

John Healey: The Government are giving a very high priority to housingboth to building new houses and to improving those that we currently have. I have not looked in detail at the specific formula for Bolton, but now I shall, in view of my hon. Friend's intervention. I hope he will recognise and welcome the fact that Bolton's formula grant stands to rise by 5.3 per cent. next year compared with this year's figures.

David Curry: The Minister spoke of the traditional choreography of these occasions. Last year, the then Minister said that he expected council tax to rise by substantially less than 5 per cent. That meant in practice anything up to 5 per cent. Does the word substantially this year mean anything different from what it meant last year? Also, does the Minister realise that there is a problem with the universal bus pass, because the formula by which the fund is being distributed means that some local authorities, such as Harrogate, stand to be very substantially underfunded for that programme, and in order to meet their bus pass obligations they will have to look for resources from other work that might be more important? Will he discuss with the Secretary of State for Transport how that can be avoided for the local authorities on which it might bear particularly heavily?

John Healey: The right hon. Gentleman is right, in that the council tax rise was 4.2 per cent. last year, 4.5 per cent. the year before, and 4.1 per cent. the year before that. The level of council tax rises will be determined by the decisions that local councils throughout the country take. As for the pressures that he feels exist in his area, let me say again that this is not just a question of the cash that central Government give; it is also a question of the decisions taken, and leadership given, by local councils in managing those pressures over the next three years. If the right hon. Gentleman's own local county council of North Yorkshire were to achieve the 3 per cent. efficiency savings that we expect, that would give it almost 9 million extra to spend on improving servicesor it could, indeed, choose to cut council tax by 39.

Clive Betts: I welcome many aspects of the overall settlement. Although it is tighter than the settlements in most recent years, it is clearly better than anything local government used to get during the 18 years when the Conservatives were in power. May I ask a specific question about my own city of Sheffield? I understand that its grant increase will be only about half that of neighbouring authorities in South Yorkshire. Sheffield has areas that are just as deprived as those in neighbouring authorities, including places such as Darnall in my constituency. The problem is that we also have areas such as Sheffield, Hallam, whose affluence raises the overall average for Sheffield, so people in the deprived parts of the city do not get the resources needed to meet their specific problems.

John Healey: One of the things that I have learned during my first few months in this job is that every council regards itself as uniquely disadvantaged by central Government funding decisions, and every council has a special case unique to its circumstances. I ask my hon. Friend not to compare the position of Sheffield with that of Rotherham, Doncaster or Barnsley, which in many ways look enviously at Sheffield's success in the past 10 yearsI know that, because one of those is an area that I represent. I ask him instead to look at the extent of the Sheffield increaseat the fact that there is an increase in all grants to Sheffield next year of more than 30 millionand in particular I hope he will work with the Government to make sure that Sheffield city council and others make best use of the new working neighbourhoods fund, which will help to tackle some of the problems that he is concerned about in Darnall.

John Gummer: Because of Government decisions, Suffolk county council has worked hard and spent a good deal of money on the pathfinder scheme, and Ipswich borough council has spent a good deal of money preparing for unitary authorities. The Government have now changed their mind on that. What resources are they going to pay to those authorities to protect the ordinary council tax payer, who will have to foot the bill for incompetence in the Minister's Department?

John Healey: I simply do not recognise that description of the announcement I made yesterday about local government restructuring; it is so wide of the mark that it does not do the right hon. Gentleman, with his long experience in local government, sufficient credit. The resources that any such councils put into their work with the boundary committee over the next year or so are a matter for those local councils. The right hon. Gentleman is concerned about Suffolk county council, and it is true that his county has done good work in improving the efficiency of its services. It is looking at a formula grant increase over the spending review period of 7.3 per cent., 4.8 per cent. and 4.4 per cent. In total, the grants from central Government mean that Suffolk county council will receive more than 40 million more next year than it will have received this year.

Kevan Jones: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement of a three-year settlement. On leadership, will he congratulate Durham county council on its successful unitary bid, which will mean that council tax in six of the seven former district authorities in Durham will fall in 2009? The bid continues to be opposed by Durham city council, which is led by the Liberal Democrats.

John Healey: My hon. Friend has been a consistently strong advocate of local government reorganisation in his county, and I pay tribute to his work. I also pay tribute to Durham county council leader Albert Nugent, whom I have met on several occasions. This process is creating new authorities, and it gives the possibility of new leadership, new involvement and empowerment of local people, and a significant improvement in the quality of services in his area in the future.

Andrew George: I genuinely seek clarification. The Minister announced, with a bit of a flourish, that he proposed to end the additional damping and fully to implement the social services formulae. He also said that this unwinds quite gradually over this and the next spending review periods. That, of course, equals six years, so the damping will be withdrawn not immediately but in a gradual fashion. The damping mechanism affects Cornish authorities. Cornwall county council has a formula grant of 149 million, but how much will be withdrawn from that council as a result of the damping mechanism? Last year, 10 million was withdrawn.

John Healey: What I announced is what we will doremove the double damping on the formula in two of the three areas of social services. Floors damping is a general feature of the systemincidentally, it was this Government who introduced it, in 2000, to protect councils year-on-year against the sort of volatility and unpredictability that they used to suffer. That will be removed, but it will unwind over the course of this spending review and the next one. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about Cornwall, he should note that it will receive an 8.5 per cent. formula grant increase next year. I hope that he puts to its county council that were it to make the efficiency savings that we expect, nearly a further 9.5 million would be available to it, so if it chose to reduce council tax bills, rather than improve services, it could do so by 50.

Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware that because of double damping Birmingham has experienced a shortfall of about 30 million in its grant allocation compared with its assessed need for social services spending. Does his announcement of the withdrawal of double damping mean that that gap will be eliminated, or at least substantially reduced? If so, that is good news, but if not, does he accept that there will continue to be considerable pressure on social care budgets?

John Healey: I have explained, and we have recognised in the settlement, the pressures on social care budgets. I have also explained how in the settlement to local authorities, and through specific grants from the Department of Health, we are trying to support councils in dealing with those. Double damping will unwind, which means that over time any gap will be reduced and then closed.

Michael Fallon: Is the Minister aware that 10 years ago Sevenoaks district council received roughly exactly the same per head as Sedgefield borough council in the north, whereas this year Sedgefield borough council is getting more than twice as much as Sevenoaks district council? [Hon. Members: Quite right!] Why should council tax payers in the south continue to subsidise the friends in the north?

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is very astute and very well informed about financial matters, so he knows that the formula is applied consistently across the whole of England. When he compares Sedgefield and Sevenoaks, he will surely recognise that Sevenoaks district council's ability to raise funds from its council tax base is entirely different from that of Sedgefield. He will also recognise that the needs element and the resource element, in which I have announced increases today, are necessary, particularly to ensure proper fairness in the system.

Mark Todd: May I ask the Minister about his decisions on floors? I suspect that I shall welcome his decision on floors for district councils, because I would expect it to benefit South Derbyshire district council, but setting a floor of 2.5 per cent. on police authorities indicates extraordinarily slow progress in implementing the formula that would correct the underfunding of Derbyshire police authority in the future.

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right, to the extent that this is always a decision about the balance between wanting to see the changes that should flow from formula calculations come through into the system and the reward of grants, and ensuring year-on-year stability and a degree of predictability for local government. The decision on the floors for the police grant follows exactly the same approach as we took in the current two-year spending settlement. The floor will be 2.5 per cent. in each of the next three years.

Paul Keetch: The Minister will accept that any settlement is good for the local people of a community only if their council is well run and well led. He knows of the concerns in Herefordshire about its council's leadership, particularly in relation to information and communications technology projects. He personally endorsed to me the appointment of Mr. Crookall to carry out an independent review. Has he seen the Crookall report? If not, will he get a copy of it? Will he publish it in full, unlike Herefordshire council, which reportedly has published only part of it?

John Healey: I will ensure that I try to get sight of the Crookall report, as the hon. Gentleman urges me to do. He is right to say that the quality of the management and the ability of councils to lead their organisation, and thus to do their best by local council tax payers, is important; it is a central feature for us. I see no reason why many more councils cannot match the best of the efficiencies that have been gainedNorthumberland county council has managed 11.5 per cent. over the current period, Sheffield city council has managed 12 per cent., Hackney borough council has achieved 14.5 per cent., and five district councils have achieved more than 20 per cent. Those councils are setting the standards for others over the next three years.

George Mudie: The seven metropolitan district fire authorities have genuine concerns about the settlement. The Minister has referred to them, so will he give any assurances that the moves that he has made meet the concerns of the fire authorities? If they think that that is not the case, will he agree to meet them as soon as possible?

John Healey: Specifically, the decisions that I have announced this afternoon for fire and rescue authorities do meet one of the principal points that those authorities were making to methat basing the formula on the most recent period was uncertain because it was untypicalso I trust that they will welcome my decision. In general terms, my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government and I are ready to meet any local authority leader or any Member of this House who wishes to make representations between today's announcement and the close of the consultation period, which will be on 8 January.

Justine Greening: May I ask the Minister to clarify the decision process on the new working neighbourhoods fund? The previous fund, the deprived areas fund, was set nationally to individual wards and was then largely administered by Jobcentre Plus district managers. That meant that the situation in wards such as Roehampton in my constituency was similar to the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who is no longer in his place. It was difficult to target the fund at areas containing diverse populations where deep areas of deprivation are located cheek by jowl with the most affluent areas in cities, so Roehampton did not qualify for it.
	Will the new working neighbourhoods fund be allocated at the local authority level and then distributed by the local authority, or will it still be done at ward level and, therefore, potentially still miss the key areas, such as those in my constituency, that did not manage to benefit from the previous fund?

John Healey: The working neighbourhoods fund will be distributed through the new area-based grant. It will be one of those grants that is totally un-ring-fenced. The hon. Lady may wish to know that her authority, Hammersmith and Fulham[Hon. Members: Wandsworth.] In that case, the point that I was going to make about Hammersmith and Fulham is not relevant.

Jeff Ennis: Following the question from the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government inherited in 1997 a perverse formula funding system, which favoured certain categories of local authority over others? Can he reassure the House that this announcement will at long last level the playing field for all categories of local authority, particularly those in SIGOMA, of which Barnsley and Doncaster are but two?

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right. He is a former Barnsley council leader and he knows just how unfair and rigged the funding system was under the previous Government. Achieving more fairness in the formula system was part of the consultation we conducted over the summer. Some of the changes that I have announced this afternoon will help to make the system even fairer. I hope that my hon. Friend and the current council leader, Steve Houghton, will welcome the fact that in Barnsley the increase in formula grantthe core grant from central Governmentwill be, over the next three years, 6 per cent., 3.7 per cent. and 3.1 per cent.

Bob Spink: Will the specific grant for the extension of the excellent concessionary travel scheme fully compensate councils such as Essex for their costsyes or no?

John Healey: The extra money that we are putting in through a special grant, as local government wanted, in each of the three years will compensate local authorities for the extra costs in making a local free travel scheme a national one from April this year.

Richard Burden: I add my welcome for the year-on-year increases which are, as has been pointed out, in stark contrast to the situation until a decade ago. I also welcome the abolition of double damping. Can my hon. Friend clarify further the phasing out of double damping, whichif I understand him correctlywill take place over six years, and will he say a little more about the mechanisms that will be in place over the next three years to assist places such as Birmingham, which have been facing pressures of some 28 million? Will he also address the point about the working neighbourhoods fund being applied to areas below the level of wards, because funding at ward level is not always appropriate for targeting the pockets of deprivation found in many areas?

John Healey: The new working neighbourhoods fund is based on criteria that start from the neighbourhood level, as my hon. Friend wishes, not the ward level. He asks also about the double damping. Damping on the formula is removed with immediate effect. It is the full changes that flow from the implementation of the formula that will feed through over the next few years, and it is the general system of floors that will ensure that that happens, but over a manageable period. Finally, he asks how we will help Birmingham in particular, and I hope that he will welcome the fact that next year the total grant increases from central Government to Birmingham council will be more than 100 million.

Mark Harper: In his alter-ego as flood recovery Minister, the Minister will know that one of the big financial pressures on Gloucestershire county council is the huge damage caused by the summer's flooding to our highways network. The bill is estimated at 25 million. We have had 10 million from the Government, for which the county is grateful, but does he have any news on the remaining 15 million?

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is right: we have given an interim payment of 10 million to Gloucestershire in recognition of the damage caused to the highway infrastructure and in response to the request that it made to us. We are working with the county at present on the final costs of the damage, but the principle is well established that although central Government will step in to support and help local governmentas we are doing in a big wayit is right to expect local councils to cover a certain amount of the costs.

Paul Holmes: The Minister said that this was a fair settlement, but how can he apply the word fair to the treatment of Derbyshire police authority, which has been underfunded for many years? Two years ago, the Government acknowledged that, but have refused to implement the formula that would remedy it. The statement today means that the authority will be 3 million short each year for the next three years, on top of the 4.5 million efficiency savings that it has to make. It already has 230 police officers fewer than the family of authorities with which it is compared. Now it seems that the authority will have to make cuts that will make that situation even worse. How is that fair?

John Healey: Fair for Derbyshire is an increase of more than 50 million in the total grant coming from central Government in the next year.

Paul Rowen: Does the Minister not accept that his announcement today also leaves Greater Manchester policethe second largest force in the countryconsiderably short of funding and having to make yet more cuts in the number of front-line officers? Does he think that that is acceptable?

John Healey: Having announced the settlement, I have made it clear that decisions on spendingon how to manage the pressures in the next three years and how greater efficiencies can be gained through council activitiesare properly a matter for local authorities, not for central Government. Greater Manchester police will have to face those pressures and those challenges, just like every other police authority and local authority.

Peter Grant Peterkin CB OBE

Helen Goodman: I beg to move,
	That this House expresses its appreciation to Peter Grant Peterkin CB OBE for his distinguished public service career, including three years as Serjeant at Arms, and extends to him its best wishes for his retirement.
	I move this motion on behalf of the whole House, not just the Government or those on this side.
	I understand that Peter Grant Peterkin is the 38th holder of the post since its establishment in the early 15th century. His appointment here followed more than 30 years of distinguished and senior military service, with his regimentthe Queen's Own Highlandersand at the Royal College of Defence Studies, including work with the United Nations and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe missions in Iraq and Kuwait, and in Kosovo.
	I know that Mr. Grant Peterkin's work in the House since his appointment in 2004 has been valued and appreciated by Members. During his period of office, he has overseen a range of important repair and refurbishment programmes. These include the major repairs of Westminster Hall, and the refurbishment of the Press Gallery areas recently reopened by the Speaker. And Mr. Grant Peterkin has helped in the move towards a long-term estate strategy embracing both Houses and facing up to the enormous challenges of preserving and enhancing this unique building.
	Mr. Grant Peterkin has helped also to see through the valuable developments made to the security of the Chamber and the building. Those have been achieved while improving the experience of visitors who come to Parliament by encouraging a welcoming style from police and security while at the same time maintaining protection. Under his watch, the visitor assistants have been introduced; they have been well received in their work meeting the public and helping with educational visits.
	I know also that Peter Grant Peterkin's leadership and personal commitment, supported by his wife Joanna, to his colleagues and staff in the Serjeant at Arms Department have been well regarded and appreciated. This is an opportunity to thank also all those in the Serjeant at Arms Department for the work that they do on our behalf in the Chamber, in the provision of services, in relation to security, and in respect of the buildings.
	As the House will know, following the review of the administration of the House by Sir Kevin Tebbit, which reported earlier this year, there are to be significant changes to the organisation of departments in the House. The Serjeant at Arms Department will undergo a major transformation, continuing the constant process of evolution in the Serjeant's office since the 15th century and in the House's administrative services generally. The new Serjeant, soon to be appointed, will be coming into a post that is very different from that of her or his predecessor, heading a new directorate in the new Department of Chamber and Committee Services. Other staff from the existing Serjeant at Arms Department will form part of the new Department of Facilities. I am sure that all the staff will continue to provide the high level of service that we have come to expect and appreciate from Mr. Grant Peterkin's time in post. I hope that the whole House will join me in thanking him and wishing him and his wife all the best for the future.

Theresa May: It is with great pleasure that I add my thanks to Major-General Peter Grant Peterkin for his services to Parliament since 2004. The role of Serjeant at Arms is not widely known outside this place, but it is an important job that ensures the good functioning of our Parliament. Peter Grant Peterkin has served Parliament in the way he served his country beforehand. The Deputy Leader of the House referred to a number of Peter Grant Peterkin's roles during his distinguished career in the Army, which included being commanding officer of the 5th Division and acting in a senior role in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission to Kosovo.
	Those who see Parliament only brieflyperhaps they watch the Speaker's procession or see ceremonial occasions such as the state openingmay go away with the view that the role of the Serjeant at Arms is largely ceremonial, but that is very far from the truth. The Serjeant at Arms has in his responsibility many significant sections of the support services, without which the House simply could not function. Over the years, the role has indeed changed. In recent years, there has been a much greater necessity for the Serjeant at Arms to look at issues of security in the House. We have seen the throwing of purple powder at the Prime Minister and the invasion of the Chamber. That has led to increased responsibilities for the Serjeant at Arms in ensuring the security of those who participate in debates in the Chamber and who visit our House.
	In recent years, and during Peter Grant Peterkin's time as Serjeant at Arms, we have also seen an enormous change in our attitude to visitors to this place, as the Deputy Leader of the House said. The way in which visitors are welcomed, and the experience that they are given and will be given when changes in the building are completed [ Interruption. ] The Minister for Local Government said from a sedentary position, Especially schools. He is right. Parliament can be proud of the fact that it has been extending its outreach and ensuring that schools and others have a good experience when they visit Parliament. That is an important part of the role of the Serjeant at Arms. Peter Grant Peterkin can be very proud of the changes that have taken place under his watch.
	Peter Grant Peterkin has, as I said earlier, given distinguished service to his country. Indeed, his life has been one given to public service. We applaud and honour him for that. On behalf of everybody on my side of the House, and I am sure across the whole House, I wish him a very happy retirement and wish him and his wife all the best for the future.

Frank Doran: I just want to say a few words as Chairman of the Administration Committee, because that is the capacity in which I have got to know Peter Grant Peterkin best. I endorse the comments that have been made by both Front Benchers who have spoken so far. They accurately reflect the contribution that he has made. Over the time that I have held this post and have got to know himjust over two and a half yearshe has provided invaluable support and help. I came to the post knowing not a lot about the way this place is runlike, I am afraid, a lot of Back Benchersbut I learned a great deal from him, particularly about accommodation issues.
	We held a major inquiry last year into accommodation in the building and we have come up with a report that is quite important for the future of the House. It includes the recommendation that there should be a 25-year strategy, which has been accepted by the House of Commons Commission, and mentions minimum standards of accommodation for Members and a number of other issues related to priorities. The input into that report from Peter Grant Peterkin, and his department under his lead, was massive and I am grateful to him for that.
	There is one area for which I think Peter Grant Peterkin would like to be remembered. It is not an issue that is in the public domain in a major way at the moment. Over the past year, he has been pushing me very hard to have a proper look at how we can green Parliament and make it an example that the rest of the country can follow. Some of that has trickled out into the press over the last few weeks. He is the initiator of many of the ideas that we will discuss and I thank him for the contribution he has made and the thinking that I hope will develop into this being the greenest Parliament in the world, and a leader in this country.
	Like everyone else who has spoken and will speak, I wish Peter Grant Peterkin and his wife the happiest of retirements.

Simon Hughes: I associate myself and my colleagues from the Liberal Democrat Benches with the motion on the Order Paper and the tributes already paid to the Serjeant at Arms. I checked the chronology, as one does, and found that the Deputy Leader of the House was right to say that the post of Serjeant at Arms goes back to 1415. There have been 38 known holders of the post, of whom this Serjeant is the last. When he took over three years ago, there had been almost 590 years of the Serjeant at Arms doing jobs for the Speaker and the House of Commons. If ever there was a job that one would expect to be different at the end from the start, that must be it.
	Peter Grant Peterkin came to what some people have described as being a slightly different role for somebody who was a major-generalin fact, it is more like being a sergeant-major. That is what the House clearly needs in some respects. It needs somebody who is, on the one hand, chief housekeeper and, on the other, chief security officera combination of roles that he has fulfilled extremely well. It is a tribute to him that it is obvious from all the comments that he has been extremely popular with parliamentary colleagues who have worked with him, with his staff, who to a person were outside yesterday to salute him as he brought in the Mace on his last formal Wednesday supporting Mr. Speaker, and with the press. That must be a triple success that not all his predecessors secured.
	Colleagues have paid tribute to Peter Grant Peterkin's extremely eminent military service, after an academic career in which he got not just a first degree but a second degree, at the great northern university of Durham. He has a Scottish and English background and has not only served his regiment, the Queen's Own Highlanders, but has served in almost every part of the world where British forces have been deployed: Belize in Latin America, the Falkland Islands, Hong Kong in Asia, and Australia. Probably most eminently, after his period in command he served in Kosovo, as part of the important recent international task there. We pay tribute to him for that.
	I notice that, in Peter Grant Peterkin's  Who's Who entry, one of his preferred recreations is cleaning ditchesnot something that I have ever seen in anybody's  Who's Who entry before. I sense that that might have been good training for a job that the Serjeant at Arms has to do all the time: mending fences. He did that well. As the Deputy Leader of the House said, as part of the great transformation over which Peter Grant Peterkin has presided, of which the most visible outward sign has been the new staff team who look after our visitorsthey do their jobs extremely well and courteously and provide very good informationthere have been many changes behind the scenes, to which the Chairman of the Select Committee referred. Some of those changes are not yet in the public domain. It has been a period of huge transition, but he will be the last Serjeant to preside over a significantly large staff. I understand that there are about 400 people in the present Department, whereas the person who replaces Peter Grant Peterkin will have only about 40 people under their direct command.
	As we pay tribute to Peter Grant Peterkin and wish him and his family all the very best for the future, we ought to observe that the old order changeth and giveth way to the new. The job of Serjeant at Arms will never be the same again.

George Young: I should like to add a very short footnote to the tributes already paid to Peter Grant Peterkin. I chair the Standards and Privileges Committee, which has had a fair amount of traffic with the Serjeant at Arms Department. He has been unfailingly fair and courteous in his dealings with us and in helping to administer the rules of the House.
	As has been said, Peter Grant Peterkin's three years in post have coincided with a general election, a massive security programme and a lot of building activity. However, it has also coincided with the House's determination to reconnect with the world outside, and he has played a key role in helping to build bridges.
	I know that he is enormously popular and respected in his Department, and he can look back with pride on his three years in the House. I wish him and his wife Jo all the best in the years ahead.

Stewart Hosie: May I add the best wishes of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru groups to the Serjeant at Arms on his retirement? In particular, I should like to communicate the best wishes of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who I know has written to him personally.
	I am very pleased that the Deputy Leader of the House laid out in some detail the Serjeant's efforts in this House and his previous record in the military, all of which should be commended. He was unfailingly courteous and wholly professional in all his dealings with our groups. I suspect that the House will miss him sooner than we think, and we wish him all the very best for the future.

Edward Garnier: I shall say little, not because there is little to say but because I suspect that the Serjeant at Arms has pursued his career in the military and the House motivated by a sense of duty rather than in search of reward and thanks.
	I do not hold an official post that entitles me to speak to this motion. I speak simply as one who has known Peter Grant Peterkin for more than 35 years, having met him first when he was a young officer in the Queen's Own Highlanders in the north of Scotland, where he lived all that time ago. I have followed his career since, and it became increasingly and abundantly clear that he is a man of great quality. His departure from the service of the House will be a great loss, and we will miss his wisdom, guidance and sureness of touch.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said that the job of Serjeant at Arms calls for the qualities of the sergeant-major as much as of the major-general. He may not know that the rank of major-general was originally called sergeant-major general. Because the rank of lieutenant-general is senior to that of major-general, it might perhaps have been better to retain the sergeant-major general rank, but that did not happen. Either way, we were fortunate to have a major-general as our Serjeant, and this one in particular.
	All those who have spoken have mentioned Peter Grant Peterkin's international military career, and that is now on the record for all to see. It gave him an outlook that was very valuable to the House. Although we often talk about foreign affairs, a career spent serving overseas brings great benefits to those of us who work in Parliament, whether we are elected or unelected officials here. We have all benefited hugely from his overseas experience.
	In parenthesis, I note that Peter Grant Peterkin was in Kuwait in the 1990s, as part of the UN military observer mission. It is perhaps significant that, at that time, there was not a whiff of anything called a dodgy dossier. How things have changed!
	I should like to extend my personal thanks to Peter Grant Peterkin for what he has done for the House, and to wish him, his wife and family all the very best on his retirement. I am happy to say that he is still a young man, with lots of active working life ahead of him. I am sure that he will be snapped up by someone else before long.
	I do not want to overdo the military analogy, but today we see a Serjeant at Arms leaving the field with his colours held high and flying proudly, and I salute him.

Michael Penning: I should like to add a final footnote to the debate, I hope on behalf of all those other hon. Members of all parties who entered the House as part of the 2005 intake. I am sure that the Serjeant at Arms saw us all as upstarts when we first arrived, but I should like to thank him for his generosity in spending time with us as we learned the processes of this wonderful establishment.

Robert Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Penning: I do not think I can give way, but if the hon. Gentleman is patient he can jump up in a minutealthough that will mean that my contribution is no longer the final final footnote.
	Whether they have worked here before or not, new Members think that they are the most important people in the world. The Serjeant at Arms was a major-general in the Army, whereas I was a lowly guardsman, but one of his great attributes was that he treated everyone with great respect and understanding. That is why this place has worked so brilliantly well.
	Sometimes things still happen here for the first time. I am sure that the Serjeant was as proud as I was when, last Thursday, his team and staff from the Speaker's Office helped to organise a visit here by nearly 100 British soldiers who had just arrived back from Afghanistan. They marched through the Central Lobby in uniform, and then had a good drink and an enjoyable time. That is the sort of thing that this House should be doing, and it would not have happened without the help of the Serjeant at Arms. Therefore, on behalf of the 2005 intake, I thank him for all his work.

Desmond Swayne: I am deeply troubled by what the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, as I had not spotted that change coming. However, the Serjeant at Arms was most helpful to me on one occasion when I had acquired a formidably large chain for my bicycle. I managed to lose the key, and had to look for help from him very late one night. He immediately despatched an officer with an equally formidable device that enabled him to snap the chain there and then. I am deeply concerned that a future Serjeant at Arms would not be able to render similar help.
	I am hugely grateful to the Serjeant at Arms for all that he has done, both for me personally and for all hon. Members.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	  
	CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.
	 Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.
	 Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Topical Debate
	  
	Cheap Alcohol (Health Consequences)

Ben Bradshaw: The Minister for Public Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), would very much have liked to open this debate, but she is in Brussels representing the UK at an EU Council meeting.
	Alcohol has been part of human life since time immemorial, but our relationship with it has never been straightforward. In moderation, it can be a social lubricant and have health benefits, but in excess it can damage health and cause wider personal and social harm. The way in which alcohol is managed in a free society raises questions about the role of the state and about individual and family responsibility. Those are questions it is not always easy to grapple with, and views in the House will vary, across political lines.
	Levels of alcohol consumption depend on a number of factors, including affordability, social acceptability and availability, but evidence suggests that affordability and social acceptability play a more important role than availability. Consumption in the UK has grown steadily over the decades as we have become richer. In 1947 a bottle of whisky cost the equivalent of 50 today. When I was growing up, there was drink in the house only at Christmas and on special occasions, whereas nowadays many people drink regularly, even daily. Excess alcohol consumption can increase the risk of heart disease, stroke and cancer. If we look at a graph of liver disease over the past 30 years, we see that the UK was near the bottom of the international league 30 years ago. In other countries liver disease has been falling, but in the UK it has been steadily rising. If trends are not reversed we will soon have more liver disease than France, which used to have the worst levels of liver disease in the world.
	Government action can make and has made a difference. Since our first alcohol harm reduction strategy was published in 2004, general levels of alcohol consumption have fallen, as has violent crime, which is often alcohol-related. The proportion of young people under 16 drinking has declined to the 1992 level.

Peter Bone: My constituent, Mr. Barry Haycock, has rung me three times this week about young children who have got cheap alcohol from the local shop, sometimes by stealth and sometimes by stealing. They are making the retailers' lives an absolute misery. That is a real issue in Rushden. Can the Minister give me any reassurances and say what might be done to help?

Ben Bradshaw: Such behaviour by local retailers is disgraceful, and I urge the hon. Gentleman, or his constituent, if they have not already done so, to report the matter to the local police and trading standards officers.

Philip Davies: If I understand correctly, the Minister's point is that the price of alcohol has come down in recent years in relative terms, yet binge drinking and the crime associated with it have come down. Does he conclude that limiting the opportunity for supermarkets to sell alcohol at a discount would make no difference to binge drinking or crime levels?

Ben Bradshaw: I will come to that point in a moment; it is exactly for the reasons the hon. Gentleman mentions that we are reviewing the matter. The Government's renewed alcohol strategy Safe, Sensible, Social, which we launched in June, aims to build on the progress that I have outlined. Three particular groups give rise to the most concern: young people under 18, to whom I have referred; 18 to 24-year-old binge drinkers; and older, harmful drinkers.
	In his comprehensive spending review statement in October, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a new Home Office public service agreementthe first relating to alcoholto produce a long-term, sustainable reduction in the harm caused by alcohol. It will include a new national Department of Health indicator to measure changes in the rate of hospital admissions for alcohol-related harms. Again, that will be the first ever national commitment to monitor how the NHS is tackling harm caused by alcohol. We plan to achieve that through the inclusion of alcohol in the new NHS performance framework, the details of which we shall announce soon. Local health trusts will set targets and priorities against that framework. The new indicator will encourage general practitioners and hospitals to identify people who drink too much and to intervene earlier with advice and support. We are also about to embark on the biggest ever information campaign to drive home the message about daily drinking guidelines, how people can estimate how much they are drinking, and the risks of drinking too much. That will be launched next April.

Kelvin Hopkins: In that propaganda, will my hon. Friend emphasise, particularly to children, the dangers of addiction? We are talking about a drug that is not just damaging but very addictive, and that is an underlying cause of the problem.

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The campaign is important because there is a lot of misunderstanding about the units system. For example, many people do not realise that the units being talked about are the equivalent of half a pint of 3.5 per cent. beer or cider, whereas a lot of the beer and cider sold today is 5 or 6 per cent. The same is true of wine: one unit means one small glass of wine at 9 per cent., but these days it is quite difficult to find wine that is below 11 or 12 per cent., and much of it is served in much bigger glasses. There is a serious perception problem; people think that they are consuming less than they are, and a contributory factor is that they often do not realise that units are smaller than they imagine.

David Taylor: The Minister refers to the bleak local and national figures. Cases of cirrhosis of the liver have doubled in the past seven years, and have gone up by more than a third in the past two years. Does he not think that we ought to have a much more widespread and effective public health campaign? Notwithstanding the comments of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), the availability of cheap alcohol at national chains with names like Bargain Booze says an awful lot about us as a nation, does it not?

Ben Bradshaw: I am not quite as gloomy as my hon. Friend, for the reasons that I highlighted earlier: since the first strategy was announced in 2004, there has for the first time been a reversal of the historical trend of increased consumption. He is right: alcohol has become cheaper, relative to income, but since the early 1980s, the price of alcohol has risen 24 per cent. higher than general retail prices. However, there is a relationship with price.

Desmond Swayne: I do not underestimate the size of the problem, which we all see in our constituency surgeries, but I am not persuaded of the extent to which price is a factor. I stay out of supermarkets, but the place where I, and most of my constituents, buy alcohol is the public house, and we find it expensive enough. Will the Minister reassure us that we are not being softened up for a great hike in taxes?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is right: the picture is complex, and that is exactly why we are holding the review that I described.

Kelvin Hopkins: rose

Ben Bradshaw: May I just finish this point? Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your advice; do I get injury time for every intervention?

Madam Deputy Speaker: No, I am afraid not. There can be up to 10 interventions, but there is no injury time.

Ben Bradshaw: But do interventions add time to my 10 minutes? [Hon. Members: Yes.] The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is right to point out that the situation is complex. The World Health Organisation says that it is clear that price is a factor, but Italy and Spain, whose alcohol prices are significantly lower than ours, also have lower consumption, so there is a strong cultural factor.

Several hon. Members: rose

Ben Bradshaw: I will give way one more time to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), and then I really must make progress.

Kelvin Hopkins: I will forgo making an intervention, to save time.

Ben Bradshaw: I am grateful.

Several hon. Members: rose

Ben Bradshaw: I must make some progress, but I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford).

Stephen Hesford: I am obliged to the Minister for giving way, and I welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), is also sitting on the Front Bench. The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) mentioned price, but I strongly disagree with him. There is a link with price. I brought a matter to the attention of my Front-Bench colleagues. I do not know whether hon. Members can see what I am holding, but it is a card that is delivered to the estates in my constituency. It is headed

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will quickly complete his point.

Stephen Hesford: It is headed, Not drunk enough. It is an offer of cheap booze, which one can phone up for, like a takeaway. Does my hon. Friend deprecate that method of selling alcohol?

Ben Bradshaw: I deprecate that, but as I explained earlier, the issue is complex, and that is why we are reviewing it.

John Hemming: rose

Ben Bradshaw: I will give way one more time, and then I must make progress.

John Hemming: Obviously, this Christmas the Government are discouraging people from going to pubs and clubs, and encouraging them to drink at home by penalising such drinks as the yard of ale. People are likely to face a fine for drinking a yard of ale in any pub or club outside the House of Commons. Does the Minister not accept that it is better to encourage people to drink in controlled circumstances? Under what the Government call the responsible alcohol sales campaign, if people are argumentativethat includes a lot of hon. Members, I presumethey are deemed to be drunk, so serving them would be an offence punishable with a fine of up to 80.

Ben Bradshaw: I do not agree with that. Serving drunks is a serious matter, and it leads to increased violence. Some people have claimed that the new licensing laws have contributed to the problem. There is no evidence to support that. As I said earlier, the latest figures actually show a recent reversal in the long-term increase in alcohol consumption. Serious violent crime is down by 5 per cent. during the evening and at nights, and less serious wounding is down by 3 per cent. Accident and emergency departments have seen a 2 per cent. decrease in serious violence. I know from talking to the police in my own constituency of Exeter that the staggering of closing times for nightclubs has helped to reduce the problems associated with everyone pouring out on to the streets at the same time. Councils and the police are using their new powers, and I would urge them to use them more.
	We remain concerned, however, about the practice by shops and supermarkets of deep discounting promotions, often as loss leaders, and at below cost price, of alcoholic products. We have therefore announced, as I said, an independent review of the evidence of the relationship between harm and the pricing and promotion of alcohol. Depending on the review's findings, which are expected next summer, we are prepared to change the law.

David Burrowes: The Minister has moved on from an analysis of the impact of the licensing liberalisation, but is it not the case that those figures fail to take account of hidden harm in the home, such as the increase in domestic abuse? Hospital admissions have increasedperhaps not because of violence, but they may be alcohol-relatedby 2,000 since 2002.

Ben Bradshaw: I urge the hon. Gentleman to be cautious about those statistics, because the collection of statistics in the health service on alcohol-related injuries is extremely patchy. The evidence from official health service data is that the sort of injuries that one would expect from drinking alcohol have declined since the Licensing Act 2003 came into force. However, he is right to suggest that there may be a hidden problem that requires further examination and exploration.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister, who is most generous with his time. When the review takes place, will he ensure that it looks at a problem for local authorities? Under the Licensing Act, they are not allowed to impose a blanket condition on licences regarding cheap drink promotions. They can impose conditions only on individual establishments, if they can demonstrate that a problem has been created on, or in the vicinity of, the premises. However, if supermarkets sell cheap drinks, which people take away, the local authority has no powers to act.

Ben Bradshaw: The review is independent, so it is entitled to look at whatever it likes. If the hon. Gentleman would like to suggest that it look at that issue, I am sure that it will take his representations seriously.
	We have introduced measures to tighten the rules on advertising. Since the Advertising Standards Authority changed its code in 2005, we have more stringent guidelines than ever before on alcohol's appeal to young people, the sexual content of advertisements, and irresponsible or antisocial behaviour. Polling evidence already suggests that that has reduced young people's exposure to alcohol advertising. The Advertising Standards Authority and the recent report by the regulator, Ofcom, have shown that young people are exposed to fewer alcohol advertisements on television. In addition, the Committee of Advertising Practice and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice will undertake a full review of all advertising codes in 2008.
	It is in everyone's interests to reduce the harm to health and the costs to society of excessive alcohol consumption, while avoiding unnecessary or nannyish restrictions on adults who wish to enjoy a legal product. I believe that the Government have got the balance right, and with the measures already undertaken and those planned for the future I hope that the picture will improve. I look forward to listening to the views of other hon. Members during the course of this debate.

John Pugh: We must all accept that alcohol is society's drug of preference. It is almost hard-wired into our social lifearguably, more than ever. Like most drugs, it has sought-after effects, such as the social lubrication to which the Minister referred, as well as noxious and toxic effects. Some of those effects are social rather than physiological, and we all know what they are.
	As with all drugs, obtaining the sought-after effects and avoiding the noxious ones is a question of controlling the dosage. That control is a matter and, indeed, a learning curve for individuals and societies. The risks are greater for people who have not been exposed to them before, such as young teenagers and native cultures that have never previously encountered alcohol. The social know-how that has developed to deal with that drug of preference varies. Latin countries assume that social patterns and customs largely provide the means for managing the problem, whereas in Nordic countries, we rely more heavily on regulation, prohibition and fiscal disincentives. Both strategies can work, except when Nordic folk go to Latin countries and suddenly find that the sangria is freely available, is all too cheap, and is as plentiful as water.
	Regrettably, Nordic cities from Moscow to Glasgow and Stockholm cannot manage without compensating legislation and a degree of Government paternalism. We therefore have legislation and licensing, which have recently variedarguably to no appreciable effect, because alcohol-related crime has not gone down significantly, although some of it is committed a little bit later than before, which puts pressure on police services that were unprepared for the change. Taxation has varied recently arguably to no good effect, because we have some of the highest taxation rates in the EU as well as some of the highest rates of consumption. It is easy to blame the licensing laws. I shall not endeavour to do so, because pub sales have not rocketed. I assume that when the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), the chairman of the all-party beer group, speaks he will address that serious problem. Pub sales have not gone up.

Kelvin Hopkins: I do not want to take up too much of the hon. Gentleman's time, but is not one reason why pub sales are not as buoyant as they were the fact that young people buy vast quantities of cheap alcohol in supermarkets and tank up before they go to the pub?

John Pugh: That is precisely the explanation. Home and street consumptionthe latter is a hidden areahas gone up quite remarkably in the past decade. The principal beneficiary is the supermarket, not necessarily in increased profits, but they have maximised their customer base and such sales attract more people into the shop. I accept that alcohol accounts for less than 10 per cent. of their sales, but they certainly endeavour to use it to produce sales elsewhere.
	This Christmas, in my town, as surely in every constituency, there will be the usual sad litany of alcoholic excess of one kind or another: antisocial behaviour, fights, road accidents and possibly deaths. If we look back over the past decade, we can see that consumption has increased, although it has dipped a bit lately; bingeing has increased, although it, too, has dipped a bit lately; liver disease has gone up inexorably; unwanted conceptions and sexually transmitted diseases, which are alcohol-related, have increased; and alcoholism itself has increased. The Government can have an impact on that, although I am not entirely certain how much. They could usefully ban dumping or loss-leading sales of alcohol by supermarkets. They could vary the fiscal regime to encourage better drinking habits. They could increase the penalties in fact, they are planning to do sofor alcoholic excess.
	Ultimately, there is no substitute for long-term change in our cultural habits. Almost any device that we come up with can be subverted by a new marketing strategy by the drinks companies. We have a cultural problem as well as a health problem, and the depth of that problem is shown by the fact that if behaviour that was previously considered dangerous, sad and reckless is exhibited by a celebrity and reported by a newspaper it is considered amusing, normal and fun. That is a clear cultural change of a highly negative nature. No one these days bats an eyelid at the fact that female drinking patterns resemble those of the rugby club. That is not a Government problemit is not fair to blame themand it is not simply a pricing problem, but it is a profoundly corrosive social tendency.

David Burrowes: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's focus on the need for cultural change, and I welcome role models such as Lewis Hamilton, who has tried to promote responsible drinking. Should not cultural change extend beyond celebrity role modelssome of them are good, but some of them are badas it should take place in the family, and should encompass the example that fathers and mothers can set?

John Pugh: I agree. There is a masked problem of too much drinking in the home, although I will not dwell on that. There is a role, too, for good social education in schools, although they cannot do the complete job, because children do not start to drink until they are in the later stages of their school career. There is a case for good public health educationand the Government have stated itbut powerful levers are operated by the media and by the drinks industry.

John Hemming: My hon. Friend said that there was too much drinking in the home. Does he share my concern that someone who recently drank a single pint in Birmingham was told that he was drunk and threatened with a fixed penalty notice? That drives people from a controlled drinking environment into the home, where they drink cheap alcohol in larger quantities.

John Pugh: It would surprise me if I found that people were, in general, driven out of pubs, where they feel they cannot drink, into the home, where they feel they can. It is not a social trend that I have observed.
	My conclusion is that the problem is a whole-society problem, which requires a whole-society response.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind Back Benchers that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on speeches from Back Benchers.

Eric Illsley: I remind the House of my interests. I am the honorary adviser to the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations.
	I am the person who suggested this as a topic for debate, and I think I was right to do so, given the lively way in which the debate has begun and the information being exchanged across the House. We can see already that there are different levels of knowledge about alcohol consumption in the United Kingdom. Overall it is falling, but cheap alcohol is available, usually in supermarkets. I take on board what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) said. There may be too much drinking in the home, in an uncontrolled environment. People are moving away from pubs and clubs, where the sale of alcohol is falling, mainly because the price in pubs and clubs has remained reasonably expensive, compared with supermarkets.
	The issue is topical, so close to Christmas. I do not want anyone to consider me or any other hon. Member a killjoy for debating the subject of cheap alcohol and criticising its availability. On my part, that would be a little hypocritical. However, it is right that we should examine the issue of excessive uncontrolled drinking, especially among younger peoplethe 18-to-24 age group, who are likely to buy alcohol in a supermarket, drink it before they go out for an evening, and drink again in a pub later in the evening. If they fall into bad behaviour, the pub usually gets the blame because it is their last place of drinking.

Peter Bone: What is the hon. Gentleman's opinion of the extent of the problem of youngsters not drinking in the home or in pubs, but buying drink from supermarkets and drinking on the streets?

Eric Illsley: That is probably worse than drinking in the home, because in the home there is at least the chance of some parental advice, guidance or control. The kids who buy alcohol from the local off-licence or the local paper shopI have that in my constituency, at the end of my streetgo round the corner and drink it on the street. Hopefully, that is a minority. As I said, overall alcohol consumption in all groups is falling. We are working towards that.

Jeremy Wright: Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a serious problem with access to alcohol by young people from the corner shop or the paper shop, as he describes? One of the reasons why that is a problem is that that alcohol is being sold by people who may not be much older than those who are buying it. Unlike the supermarket environment, there is a difficulty because people who are on duty on their own in a corner shop are pressurised to sell alcohol when they should not.

Eric Illsley: That is a good point. There could be all manner of pressures on someone selling in a shop like that, especially if a group of kids come into the shop and a young girl or young woman is serving behind the counter. There is pressure on that person, but I do not want the House to run away with the idea that the corner shops are all selling irresponsibly. There are codes of practice throughout the industry. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association particularly made that point. We should not condemn all corner shops.
	I welcome the remarks that the Minister made in opening the debate, and I shall not repeat what he said about the alcohol strategy. I welcome the steps that the Government are taking, and I hope that they will enable us to find a way of rebalancing the argument. From my point of view, that means rebalancing the argument between the supermarkets and the cheap sales, and the pubs and clubs which are suffering.

Philip Davies: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why my constituents and no doubt his constituents, the vast majority of whom buy their alcohol in the supermarket and drink responsibly, should pay more for their alcohol simply to cover a minority of people who are drinking irresponsibly and may well continue to do so anyway?

Eric Illsley: My wish is that they did not have to. If we did not have the problem of excessive drinking and bad behaviour, they would not need to. The reason that the hon. Gentleman is looking for is that the price of alcohol in supermarkets and other retail outlets is artificially low. I shall come to that.
	The difference between controlled and uncontrolled drinking is having an effect on the pubs and clubs, where prices have continued to increase in line with inflation. In the supermarkets, the price of alcohol has not risen because they are selling it at less than the wholesale cost.
	As I mentioned, most of the organisations dealing with alcohol in the UK have codes of practice. The Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations has its social responsibility standards, which include promoting responsible drinking, avoiding any actions that encourage or condone illegal, irresponsible or immoderate drinking, taking reasonable precautions to ensure that people under the legal purchase age cannot buy alcoholic drinks, and avoiding any forms of marketing or promotion that have particular appeal to young people.
	Those are the guidelines applicable to pubs. The British Beer and Pub Association has a document on point-of-sale promotion. BBPA members are committed to the responsible management of licensed premises and the responsible promotion of their brands. There is a substantial document which places conditions on the licensed trade to act in a responsible manner. If a young person is drunk in a pub, the licensee, by the terms of his licence under the Licensing Act 2003, has a responsibility not to serve him and to remove him from the premises.

Don Foster: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's mention of the industry's voluntary codes of practice. We should all welcome what the British Beer and Pub Association and others have been doing. Does he not find it odd that in the guidance on the licensing regime, section 10 specially says that it is okay for a local authority to encourage the adoption of an industry code of practice, but local authorities are forbidden to promote their own locally determined code of practice? Is that not a huge anomaly?

Eric Illsley: Indeed. I listened to the hon. Gentleman's point to the Minister earlier. The Government could look into that as a way of trying to resolve the problem of irresponsible drinks promotions. In my constituency we had a case a couple of years ago when the police intervened. A nightclub was offering a 10 entrance fee which allowed people to drink all they wanted all evening. The police took action to persuade the nightclub owners not to pursue that promotion. There are various examples of that throughout the industry. The pubs and clubs industry is to a large extent regulated by its own codes of practice.

John Hemming: With his expertise from dealing with the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations, I am sure the hon. Gentleman has heard the concerns of members of that association about the uncertainty of the definition of the word drunk in the 2003 Act. According to the guidelines issued by the Home Office, difficulty in paying attention and not understanding what is said is a sign of somebody being drunk and could therefore result in a fixed penalty. I would argue, although the hon. Gentleman may not agree, that that could be said of many Ministers, who cannot understand what is said. The difficulty is that in Birmingham, very low level drunkenness has been deemed sufficient for fixed penalty notices.

Eric Illsley: That is for the licensees and the police, I suppose. The fact that the hon. Gentleman mentions fixed penalties suggests that the police have been brought into the premises at the licensee's behest. It is one aspect of the new licensing laws that we can consider.
	I turn to the availability of cheap alcohol in supermarkets. This week premium spiritsgin, scotch, vodkaare on sale at 10 per litre in Tesco and 20 for 2 litres. Supermarkets are selling 70 cl of these spirits at 9.98. A litre is 10, so for 2p extra, one gets the other 25 cl. In Asda, a person can buy three cases of 18 440 ml cans of John Smith's, Foster's or Carlsberg for 20, or two cases for 16. Such promotions are advertised on TV and in newspapers. The  Daily Mail, one of the newspapers that rails so much against binge drinking and irresponsibility in this country, runs those adverts promoting cheap alcohol. There is a little hypocrisy on the part of the press.
	Somebody mentioned historical prices. I have a price list from 1986; in that year, Tetley's bitter cost 68p per pint. If we adjust that for the changes in VAT since 1986 and apply inflation at 119 per cent., that price should be 1.51 a pint today. Someone going to a pub in my constituency today would pay 2.40 per pint; the cost of a pint of Tetley's is 59 per cent. more than the retail prices index would imply. That is how much the price of beer in a pub setting has increased. In 1986, a can of Tetley's beer in a pub, on and off sale, was 79p; today, in a supermarket, a can of Tetley's costs 55p. That is the answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies): beer prices are artificially depressed.
	I have promised to be careful about what I say in respect of my next point, because a major brewer has threatened legal action against the FLVA. An invoice from that brewer to Morrison's shows that the supermarket was selling cases of beer at prices lower than the brewer was charging. Those prices are artificially depressed. I want some form of rebalancing of the situation between our supermarkets and pubs because pubs are a controlled environment.
	As the Minister said, a lot of the beer on sale in supermarkets now is much stronger than beer served in a pub, for example; we can buy much stronger beers and spirits. The Licensing Act 2003 brought in 24-hour drinking, but we should remove that phrase because it is a complete myth. Some 9 per cent. of pubs, bars and nightclubs applied for a 24-hour licence. In total, that involves just over 500 establishments. However, some 18 per cent. of supermarkets have a 24-hour drinking licence, so in my constituency, the kids can go drinking in the town centre on a Friday night, and when the pubs have closed they can go to the supermarket on the way home, get a few cans of beer and use the free phone in the supermarket to call a taxi. Some 65 per cent. of hotels have 24-hour drinking. There is very little 24-hour drinking in this country.

David Amess: Although I welcome this topical debate, it seems a bit bizarre that the Minister is not given the opportunity to respond. I doubt whether any hon. Member is going to stand up and say, Isn't it wonderful that we are all getting sloshed?  [Interruption.] Am I being advised that the Minister will respond?

Vernon Coaker: indicated assent.

David Amess: That is just as well; there is no point in a topical debate unless the Minister can say, That hon. Member made a good suggestion.
	I listened carefully to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), when he opened the debate, but I am afraid that none of what he said washes with me. His picture of what the Government have been doing is a million times removed from the reality of life in Britain today. This Government are strong on strategy but very weak on delivery. All this is typical of the Government. If anything is to blame for the problem that we are debating, it is the relaxation of licensing laws. In the same way, if we had had casinos in every town, we would probably have had a topical debate about people gambling too much. There is no doubt that the relaxation of licensing laws has made the situation much worse.
	I am a tea-aholic; I enjoy cups of tea. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is a teetotaller, but I am notI enjoy alcohol. I drink not to drown my sorrows but to increase my pleasure and I shall certainly not join the hon. Members who condemn all cheap alcohol. I go to stores and like my three bottles for 10 and all that. Surely we should be talking about the fact that young peoplewho should not be drinking in any case because it is illegal for themare drinking too much.
	The Minister and the Government do not recognise life in Britain today. The situation is absolutely out of control. We turn on the TV and see yet another reality programme glorifying everyone getting sloshed. It is no good Members saying in the House how dreadful it is; what is important is what the House is going to do about it. I will be honest and say that I do not have a magic solution to the problem although as I have said, the relaxation of our licensing laws has been a disaster.
	During the course of the Health Committee's inquiry into obesity, some of us argued that the calorific content of alcohol should certainly discourage young people, who are figure-conscious, from over-imbibing.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend made a good point about under-age drinking. Does he agree that there has been too much focus on increasing penalties for people serving at checkouts and shopkeepers, who often find themselves in difficult situations and try to do the right thing? Much less has been done to tackle the people who know that they are breaking the lawthe young people themselves. Perhaps there should be tougher sentences for the under-18s who try to buy the alcohol in the first place. That is the only way to tackle the problem; we should not for ever clobber hard-pressed shopkeepers and checkout operators, who are trying their best under difficult circumstances.

David Amess: I understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if I keep giving way my speech will be longer, so I shall not give way to anyone else or others will be squeezed out of the debate. I say to my hon. Friend that the police do not work as volunteers; we pay them to do a job. I very much regret the terrible example that Sir Ian Blair is setting at the moment. Frankly, I do not want the police to clean up after people who have drunk too much; I want them to do the real job of policing, although I agree with what my hon. Friend said.
	Nowadays, the toughest job in the world is being a parent. The situation for those of us who are parents of young or youngish children is very different from how it was for our equivalents 20 or 30 years ago. We do our best for our children and try to point them down the right path, but my goodness, they face terrible challenges. It is no good hon. Members coming out with clichs; we need a solution. One positive idea relates to calories. There is the ridiculous idea that young ladies want to be size zero, but those of us with Dolly Parton earlier this week thought her figure quite welcome. I ask the Government to consider whether the calorific content of alcohol might put young people off.
	In contrast to what I think the Minister said, excessive drinking among young people has led to a 20 per cent. rise in hospital admissions in England in the past five years. I should say to the Minister that I got my information from the House of Commons Library. Ian Foster of the north-west ambulance service, which covers Cheshire and Merseyside, one of the worst-hit areas, said:
	It's not unusual for a child to have drunk a litre of vodka. That would have me on my back for three or four weeks.

Ben Bradshaw: Let me clarify this for the hon. Gentleman's benefit. It is true that young people under 16 who drink are drinking more, but fewer of them are doing so. There is no contradiction in what I said. One of the main planks of the new strategy is to deal with young people under 16 who are drinking too much, although thankfully there are fewer of them now than there were five years ago.

David Amess: Okay, I have listened to the Minister, but I am sick to death of strategies to get out of bed in the morning and go to bed at night. A strategy just gives advicethere is no legal enforcement behind it.
	Ministers have been coming under growing pressure to tackle the issues of under-age and binge drinking, with claims that supermarket promotions mean that it can be cheaper to buy alcohol than water. There is no way in which the Government are going to take on the biggest supermarkets in the countrythat is an absolute joke. This Government work hand in glove with the big supermarkets on every single issue: Get your free tokens to get a computer; Work with the council and you get a new road put in. It is codswallop to say that they will take on the supermarketsthey will not.
	Last week, research for Ofsted suggested that a fifth of 10 to 15-year-olds regularly get drunk. That is the reality that the Government need to get wise to. We are talking about human beings. The House should be worried about this, or what is the point of being an MP? Certain supermarkets have been selling alcohol as cheaply as 22p a can, but the Government will not do anything about itthey will just say, Isn't it dreadful?
	Alison Rogers, chief executive of the British Liver Trust, recently said:
	We are seeing an alarming increase in people suffering serious liver problems as a result of alcohol. The United Kingdom is the only developed nation
	I say this to the Minister
	with a rising rate of liver disease.
	Why is that? We need an answer from the Government.

Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Amess: I would like to, but [ Interruption. ] Oh, all right.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that the Government will do nothing. Does he accept that they could at least enforce existing legislation? It is illegal to sell alcohol to somebody who is already drunk, but there have been fewer than 60 prosecutions in the past nine years. It is illegal to sell drink to somebody who is underage, but a Government survey recently showed that of the premises surveyed 40 per cent. were selling to at least one underage person.

David Amess: I am now glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. What is the point of our putting legislation on to the statute book when none of it is enforced?

Ben Bradshaw: That is not true. In the 12 months for which we have the latest figures, 92 licences were revoked, 91 licences were suspended, and some Tesco stores were banned from selling alcohol for three months following the sale of alcohol to a 16-year-old test purchaser. We would like the law to be enforced better, but it is being enforced.

David Amess: We will have to have a private argument later with the Library, but the Minister was right to respond.
	A further study by the Centre for Public Health at Liverpool John Moores university shows that more than half of all young adults consume cheap supermarket drinks at home before a night out. That happens all the time. Youngsters get sloshed before they go out for the evening because they cannot afford the drink prices in the clubs. The study showed that those who drink large quantities of cheap alcohol before a night out were four times more likely to drink more than 20 units a night and two and a half times more likely to become involved in violent offences. According to the Alcohol Health Alliance, 13 children are taken to hospital every day as a result of alcohol misuse.
	Cheap alcohol is fuelling bingeing. The figures are alarming, especially in relation to children. Health effects include burst bladders, long-term liver damage, injury as a result of alcohol-fuelled violence, liver cancers and mental health problems. Young people have mental health problems as a result of alcohol, just as with the Government's stupid relaxation of the laws on cannabis. Strokes are caused, as well as an array of other serious health problems. Nearly 5,000 cancer deaths per year are attributable to alcohol. I welcome this topical debate on underage drinking and cheap alcohol, but enough is enough. The Minister and the Government must get real to what is happening in society and give us some deliverable solutions.

John Grogan: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). He spoke with typical flamboyance and style, and he was provocative as well.
	I speak as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on beer. It is a tough job, but someone has to do it. My oldest mentor in politics said to me once, when I was a much younger man, Whatever you do in politics, get photographed with contented-looking pensioners and eager youngsters, but never get photographed with a pint of beer in your hand. As chairman of the all-party group, I have often been photographed with a pint of beer in my handthe only time I made it into the Sunday tabloids was in a particularly unflattering photo when MPs' expenses were published for the first time. The headline of the story was Hard to swallow. Nevertheless, I would like to make a contribution to the debate.
	It is with regret that I say this, but I want to charge Terence Leahy, the boss of Tesco, with being the godfather of British binge drinking. I do not make that claim lightly. I want to give some evidence for it, because I know that some hon. Members are sceptical. Representatives of the supermarkets have come before the all-party group, and earlier this year they argued that it is impossible to produce figures on below-cost selling of alcohol. However, the Competition Commission, as part of its inquiry, produced such figures. In its first go, it said that during the World cup last year, Tesco underpriced beer to the extent of 43.2 million and wines and spirits to the extent of 48 million. Those figures were quickly withdrawn and reduced to 15.1 million for beer and lager, and 100,000 for wines and spirits.
	I understand that Tesco argued not that they did not underprice during the World cup, but that they underpriced all the time. Those figures were applicable not just to the World cup but throughout the yearChristmas, Easter, the World cup, the rugby world cup. There is always an excuse to do it. We are talking about selling alcohol at a lower cost than water. We are not talking about baked beans; there has to be a bit of a different attitude. Everyone else has recognised that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) so eloquently pointed out. Pubs, clubs and the brewers themselves have all recognised that they have to address the issue, but Sir Terence Leahy still has not. He went into Downing street last week, and the only idea that he came up withthe only one reported anywaywas that the age at which people can drink in the home should be brought down. I do not know how he intends to police that, although I think that a modest amount of alcohol consumption in the home can be a way of introducing people to sensible alcohol consumption.
	The hon. Member for Southend, West referred to the study from the Centre for Public Health at Liverpool John Moores university that talked about the concept of pre-loading. To underline what he said, those who drink excessively at home before they go out are four times more likely to consume 20 units of alcohol in an entire night, and about two and a half times more likely to get into a fight and get into trouble with the police.

Philip Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question that I put to the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley)? Why should my decent, law-abiding constituents, and those in his constituency, be forced to pay more for alcohol that they buy in supermarkets and drink moderately at home in order to deal with the issues that he raises, which may not be dealt with by that solution anyway?

John Grogan: I want to say two things to the hon. Gentleman about that. First, there is a wider social context to this matter. It does not do our society any good if the cost of alcohol is lower than that of water. Secondly, there is an economic impact on small shopkeepers. The Association of Convenience Stores is annoyed because their stores just cannot compete, and small brewers are annoyed because their British beers cannot compete with the massive discounts on things like Stella. The hon. Gentleman has a good point. I do not think that politicians should set the price of beer, and I shall suggest a couple of very modest measures that the supermarkets might like to consider. However, there is a wider context to the issue.
	Student unions are even losing out in this process. They are running into deficits because many students are drinking at home before they come out. I mentioned smaller brewers. Simon Buckley of Evan-Evans, a small brewery in Wales, has produced figures for me, which I shall pass on to the Minister, that indicate the impossibility of the supermarkets covering costs at the sort of prices they are charging. It is well worth considering the situation in Scotland. The new Administration have started to address the issue. The new Justice Secretary told Alcohol Focus Scotland that he intends to take a number of measures to deal with it. He said that any promotion that provides alcohol free or at a reduced price on the purchase of one or more of the productor another productwill be outlawed. He also said that shops should have separate alcohol display areas to help challenge the perception that alcohol is no different to juice or wateror baked beans.
	A number of things can be done. I have two suggestionsboth of which have been hinted at by other hon. Membersfor Sir Terence Leahy and the supermarkets to consider, if they are really serious about the problem. First, given the importance of the issue, they should say that they will abandon the practice of selling alcohol below cost. That would show hon. Members that they are taking it seriously. Secondlythey could start work on this tomorrowthey could work out a code of practice similar to the one that the pubs have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central suggested. They could use words such as outlawing irresponsible promotions. The pubs have done that; there is no reason why the supermarkets cannot. Sir Terence Leahy must address the issue. The big supermarket bosses must stop putting their heads in the sand. We want some leadership from those powerful individuals.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Southend, West is wrong. The issue is coming nearer to the top of the political agenda. Although there may be no need to call Sir Terence Leahy the godfather of binge drinking, Ministers' credibility depends on ensuring that he comes to the table, deals with Ministers and takes some modest measures that will help to deal with the issue.

John Pugh: If Sir Terence were to take the hon. Gentleman's advice and price his goods accordingly, how could that be policed? How would we know that he had done that?

John Grogan: The Competition Commission suggests that economists can work such things out. I have no doubt that the commission's economists, or others, could produce such figures. To some extent, it is a question of trust. The pubs and so on have made enormous strides. They have watchdogs that monitor them and industry associations that improve standards. The problem with the supermarkets is that they are pretending that there is not a problem when there is. We need to deal with it.

Don Foster: I did not intend to speak in the debate until, following my earlier intervention, the Minister seemed to challenge some of the figures that I used. I thought that it might be helpful to refer to the figures that the Minister challenged.
	First, however, the debate has been fascinating. Although I would never want to be critical of any of my hon. Friends, my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) referred to the fact that people from Nordic countries had to go to Latin countries to find places where sangria was as cheap as water. He only has to go to my local supermarket to find that sangria is cheaper than the bottled water that they sell.
	The issue is important. Whatever statistics we all throwthe Minister has thrown some, while others have thrown othersmany people fear to go through the streets in our towns and cities because of the hooligan behaviour of far too many people who have had far too much to drink. Whatever the statistics show, the reality on the street surely means that we have to find measures, and find them quickly, to address the problems that we face.
	It is worth reflecting that back on 23 November 2005 the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said:
	We are determined to tackle alcohol related violence and anti-social behaviour in all its forms and crack down on those who encourage it by irresponsible retailing.
	That was two years ago, but all we have heard from the Minister so far is that we will have a further review to see what measures can be put in place. During those two years, we have seen increases in the number of problems with cirrhosis of the liver and in the number of admissions to the accident and emergency units of our hospitals after alcohol-related incidents, while the police have said that they are being diverted from other tasks over a much longer time because of some of the changes in the licensing legislation. Clearly, something needs to be done as a matter of urgency.
	As well as the many measures that we should consider, such as those suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport and the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who chairs the all-party beer groupwe congratulate him on his worksurely we should ensure that existing legislation is properly enforced. I suggested to the Under-Secretary that there was a problem with enforcing the rules that prevent the sale of alcohol to people who are under age. He challenged me about the figures, but they are Government figures from a recent report. It is entitled the Tackling Underage Sales of Alcohol Campaign. It shows that, of the 2,683 premises targeted, children could buy alcohol at 40 per cent. of them on their first attempt. A parliamentary answer to a question from me a few months ago showed that only 62 prosecutions were brought for that offence.
	The Under-Secretary then challenged my other set of statistics about establishments that sell alcohol to people who are already drunk. I note the difficulties, which have been mentioned, of defining that. I accept that it is difficult for the police to prove conclusively that the person was drunk before the last drink that was sold to them. Perhaps the person was sober at the time but was then hit by the fresh air outside. However, the Under-Secretary appeared to challenge the figures, yet they derive from a parliamentary answer given to me as recently as 29 October. They show that throughout the country, in the past nine years there were only 52 convictions of a licensee for permitting drunkenness or riotous conduct on the premises, or selling liquor to a drunken person. Two existing measures are clearly not being enforced.

Philip Davies: No one would defend irresponsible retailers, but it is easy to be an armchair critic. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has worked on a checkout or behind a counter at a local Co-op. As someone who has worked on a supermarket checkout, and worked for a supermarket chain for many years, I know at first hand the lengths to which supermarkets go to prevent under-age sales. People are often put in difficult circumstances. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there is perhaps more mileage in giving more severe sentences and punishments to the people who try to purchase alcohol before they are 18 than in attempting to clobber those who are often trying to do the right thing?

Don Foster: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Earlier, he made a fair point about the difficulty for people, perhaps especially those in smaller shops, who are left alone to do their job. We welcome the work of the chains, of which many small shops are members, and that of the organisations that the hon. Member for Selby mentioned, such as the British Beer and Pub Association, which set out codes of conduct and offer advice and support to people who work in such establishments. I acknowledge that things are not easy. I have already commented on the difficulty for the police of defining drunkenness. However, the figures that I cited show that there are problems with existing legislation not being fully implemented.
	It is critical to give our local authorities far more powers to tackle problems in their local communities. Our local authorities understand the difficulties presented by specific circumstances in their area. It is therefore especially disappointing that the Licensing Act 2003 and the guidance issued under section 182 leave local authorities without many of the powers that they would like in connection with cheap alcohol.
	Paragraph 10.38 of the guidance states:
	Licensing authorities
	which are now local councils
	should not attach standardised blanket conditions promoting fixed prices for alcoholic drinks to premises licences or club licences or club premises certificates in an area as this is likely to breach competition law. It is also likely to be unlawful for licensing authorities or the police to promote generalised voluntary schemes or codes of practice in relation to price discounts on alcoholic drinks, 'happy hours' or drinks promotions.
	That takes a lot of the power to address the issue away from local authorities. What is bizarre, however, is the anomaly in paragraph 10.39, which says:
	However, it is acceptable for licensing authorities to encourage adoption locally of voluntary industry codes of practice which cover irresponsible drinks promotions such as that produced by the British Beer and Pub Association.
	I fail to understand how it can be acceptable for a local authority to promote a code of practice that has been brought forward by an industry organisation, for example, but it is not possible for a local authority to promote a scheme in its area that it has brought forward itself.
	When I recently raised the issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who is responsible for licensing, he kept telling me that that was because of the Competition Act 1998, yet surely if a local authority accepts and promotes an industry code of practice, but the local authority next door does not do so, that is the same problem as an authority with its own local scheme. I simply do not understand, so I hope that before we conclude, some hon. Member who contributes to this debate will shed some light on that peculiar anomaly, which prevents local authorities from having any real say in a key issue that affects so many authorities and the people who live within them.

Janet Dean: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. As many hon. Members will know, I represent the capital of brewing, Burton upon Trent. I therefore know that it is the wish of the brewing and pub industries that we should have sensible drinking. It is important that we should recognise that most people do indeed drink sensibly.
	At a time when there are young people developing alcohol-related health problems that were previously associated only with older people, it is interesting to note that overall beer sales through pubs and the off-licence trade are at their lowest levels since 1969. In fact, according to the British Beer and Pub Association, the volume of beer sold through pubs is now at its lowest level since the great depression of the 1930s. We need to take action to prevent the misuse of alcohol; but we need to do so in ways that do not impact further on our traditional brewing industry. We have already seen 10 per cent. of brewing industry jobs lost in the past two years. There are now 7 million fewer pints of beer a day sold than in 1979. Alongside that, the costs of raw materialsbarley, malt, glass and aluminiumare soaring. The BBPA reports that brewing companies earn a profit of only 0.7p per pint, compared with the average 33p per pint paid in beer duty.
	I do not believe that increasing duty on beer is the answer to problem drinking. It could also produce less revenue for the Exchequer. Since 1997, beer duty has increased by 27 per cent. while consumption per head has decreased by 11 per cent., whereas the duty on cider has increased by 11 per cent. and consumption has increased by 30 per cent. Duty on wine has changed by 16 per cent. and consumption has increased by 46 per cent., while consumption of spirits per head has increased by 20 per cent., with duty increasing by only 3 per cent. An increase in beer duty would serve only to damage beer sales in our pubs, as other hon. Members have mentioned.
	In our pubs, people drink in a relatively controlled environment, compared with off sales. Moreover, any duty increase would be unlikely to affect the price at which beer is sold in the supermarkets, because despite the 27 per cent. increase since 1997, there have been no increases in beer prices in supermarkets. It is clear that the off trade is causing most damage to people's health, whether it be young people getting alcohol from the corner shop or bulk supplies being brought into their homes, sometimes by their parents or older siblings, and usually from supermarkets. Purchases from the off trade are also causing damage to older people, who are drinking more wine than is recommended, for instance, in their homes.
	I believe that we should stop supermarkets selling alcohol at below cost prices as a way of bringing shoppers into their stores. As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) said, supermarkets advertise booze in the same way as they advertise baked beans. In fact, they do not seem to see that there is any difference. We should also look at how much space is taken up by alcohol products in supermarkets, and where they are positioned in the store.
	There are opportunities for the Chancellor to raise increased revenue while at the same time discouraging irresponsible drinking. The strength of wine has considerably increased in recent years, to levels as high as 15 or 16 per cent. alcohol, yet all wines are taxed at a flat rate, unlike beer, which is taxed according to its strength. Cider, similarly, is taxed at a flat rate, whatever its strength. Cider duty is 15p a pint. Beer duty is 31p a pint for 4 per cent. alcohol, rising to 58p for 7.5 per cent. alcohol. Cider sales have increased by 41 per cent. over the past two years, taking that share from beer sales. In the off trade that increase is greater, at 60 per cent.
	Under-age drinkers on our streets go for cider, rather than beer. They go for what is cheapest and strongest. A litre bottle of super-strength cider contains 15 units of alcohol and can be bought for just 2.99. That is less than 20p a unit. The duty paid on that cider is 52p. If it were beer, the duty would be 2.06. If cider duty were brought into line with beer duty, the Chancellor could raise an extra 277 million in revenue.

Martin Linton: There is a problem with super-strength 7.5 per cent. alcohol ciders that can be bought for 59p, but does my hon. Friend accept that there is also a problem with super-strength lagers, which are often on sale for 1 and contain 4.5 units in a single-serve container? That amount is above the Government's recommended daily limit.

Janet Dean: I agree that we ought to encourage people to drink lower-strength alcohol in general.
	During this festive season, it also seems right to mention another health consequence relating to alcoholthat of drink-driving. I commend the pubs in Burton for offering free soft drinks as part of a campaign to discourage revellers from drinking and driving during the festive season. The campaign, which is called I'll be Desthat is, the designated driveris supported by Burton Pubwatch, and I hope that similar initiatives will be launched elsewhere in the UK.

Kelvin Hopkins: I have only a few minutes in which to make my speech, but I am pleased to have this opportunity. I have raised these issues with successive Leaders of the House and I am pleased that the present one has granted us this debate today. I have constantly emphasised the importance of alcohol and health yet, until recently, it has been either the Home Office or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that has looked at alcohol issues. I believe that the primary issue is the effect of alcohol on health, and I am pleased that we are having this debate today.
	I tabled an early-day motion about three and a half years ago on the subject of reducing alcohol-related deaths. This followed a report by the Academy of Medical Sciences which found that a 10 per cent. increase in the price of alcohol would lead to a drop in all alcohol-related deaths of 28.8 per cent. for men and 37.4 per cent. for women. Those are enormous reductions, given the relatively modest price increase. The academy produced a thorough report, which showed that price is crucially significant in this regard.

Philip Davies: The Minister said earlier that he was considering restricting the advertising of alcohol. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if advertising by certain manufacturers were further restricted, they would invest their marketing budget in reducing the price of their products still further, thus totally negating the point that he is making?

Kelvin Hopkins: I accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I want to emphasise to the Government that we need price control. There should be a minimum price level for all alcoholic drinks. I would like to see their price in supermarkets raised towards the level that pertains in public houses. That would help public houses and depress the sales of cheap alcohol.
	Apart from the supermarkets, another source of cheap alcohol is the vast ocean of it that is brought in from the continent of Europe. I should like to see tighter restrictions and lower levels of imports for personal use. A white van-load of beer is not for personal consumption; it is for selling illegally, usually off the record and in the poorer areas of Britain. People make vast sums of money out of doing that.
	I really want to talk about alcohol and health, particularly about an issue that I have successively raised in parliamentary questions and called for us to debatefoetal alcohol syndrome and the damage caused to babies before they are born because of their mother's drinking. There is a lot of evidence that the amount of damage caused by alcohol to babies when they are born is far and away above all the other birth defects put together. I am not talking only about serious foetal alcohol syndrome, but about rather lower levels of damage that can inhibit babies' intelligence, perhaps leading them to perform less well at school or to have behavioural problems.
	Although a great deal more research needs to be done, there is already considerable evidence that mothers' drinking is having serious effects on babies. It seems very unfair on pregnant womenI am pleased to see the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward), on the Front Bench todaybut it is a serious issue. Men do not suffer from the same problem, which is very unfair, but when women are seeking to become pregnant and during the early stages of pregnancy it is absolutely vital for them not to drink, because small foetuses do not have very large livers and they cannot cope with the alcohol. They are damaged by any alcohol that their mothers consume. There has been considerable obfuscation about this issue recently, perhaps deriving indirectly from the drinks industry, but the evidence is there.
	I want to see supermarkets reined in and the price of alcohol raised in them. We heard earlier about the level of alcohol in particular drinks, so why not directly relate the price and tax levels to the amount of alcohol in the drink? That would help us to overcome the problem, as there would no longer be an incentive to buy cheap, strong cider as opposed to beer. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) would no doubt benefit because beer sales would rise relative to those of cider.
	I wanted to raise several further points, but I am rapidly running out of time. One other important point is the cost of alcohol to the economy. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has estimated the cost of alcohol-related problems in Britain at about 20 billion a yeara vast sum of money, which we should be spending on things other than the effects of alcohol.
	I recently returned from a Select Committee visit to Washington in America. We were there for Hallowe'en and it was a real delight to see hundreds and thousands of young people in the streets in fancy dress; they were all completely sober because they are allowed to drink alcohol only when they are 21. That is rigidly enforced with fierce penalties for drunkenness. Anybody who looked vaguely in their mid-20s was checked before they went into a bar to be served alcohol. They take alcohol very seriously indeed in the USA. I do not necessarily admire everything America does, but it is right about that. I suspect there would be a riot if we tried to go as far as the Americans do in these matters, but we should move in that direction and take the problem more seriously. There are hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people in Britain who are suffering to some extent from alcohol problems. We ought to face those difficulties properly and not tinker at the edges, which is what we have been doing up till now.
	I was chair of the all-party parliamentary group on alcohol misuse for five years, and year after year we asked Ministers to bring forward their proposals for an alcohol strategy. However, year after year we were made promises that were not fulfilled. We are now starting to do something about it, but we are still taking it far too lightly. I think that we need to take much stronger action.
	I refer Ministers to the correspondence I recently received from Alcohol ConcernI will continue to correspond with the organisationabout the role of relative prices in respect of alcohol problems. I would like to see my Front-Bench colleagues take the issue more seriously and take action that is commensurate with the seriousness of the problem.

Michael Penning: May I state from the outset that a very sensible debate has taken place for the last hour or so? I would like to start with some comments on the contributions so far. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), who brings a wealth of experience from his previous chairmanships. I, too, believe that there is an important debate to be had about the damage caused to foetuses from alcohol. That is so important that we should have a separate debate on it. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that an educational process needs to take place throughout the country, not least in pre-natal classes.
	The hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) defended the brewing industry fantastically well. Perhaps I should declare an interest at this stage in that I occasionally feel the need for the odd pint of Burton ale, even though my preference is for Guinness. I declare that interest at the outset. What concerns me slightly, however, is that the decline in pubs and pub sales is not just about beer but about what goes on in pubs. The sale of cider, for instance, is a bit of a fad at the moment and should not be addressed in the same way as the sale of beer.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), whose letter, I believe, prompted the debate. I know that he raised this important issue at Prime Minister's Question Time the other day. If we are not careful, we will no longer have the great British pub where we can go and have a beer and enjoy a social life, which is very worrying. So many people come to this country and talk about our pubs, but a frightening number of pubs have closed over the past 20-odd years.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) brought a wealth of knowledge to a typically robust speech from his experience of representing a seaside town. Having lived in that seaside town for some 15 years myself and served as a fireman in the area, I can tell the House that the knowledge gained from living in a seaside town outranks any other. Southend needs day trippers, but I think it wants to keep only some of them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Selby [Interruption.] I apologise. The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) now represents the all-party parliamentary beer group. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) represented it for many years, but clearly the hon. Gentleman has ousted him. That event must have been a sight for sore eyes. I understand that the hon. Gentleman represents the beer group very well. Apparently I am a member of it, although no one told me.  [Interruption.] That is quite nice; I shall be along later.
	I meant to refer not to the hon. Member for Selby but to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who has a wealth of experience in the retail industry and defends his position very well, although I disagreed with most of what he said.
	The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made some extremely important points, not least in defending his figures to the Minister but also in making it clear that if we really want localismwhich, I think, is the way politics has to go in this countrywe must respect the elected local representatives and trust them to run their areas in the way they feel is appropriate. It was right to give them more powers to look after licensing and invoke what local people want.
	Having declared my personal interest in the odd pint, I think it important to add that social, sensible, safe drinking is part of the British culture and something that we want to encourage and keep going. I fully recognise the danger that the minority will spoil things for the majority, but we must not underestimate the damage to the nation's health that is caused by alcohol. Although I agreed with much of what the Minister said, I believe that the Government are sending mixed messages. One example is, of course, the legislation allowing 24-hour licensing.
	As the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central pointed out, very few public houses allow 24-hour drinkingonly 460, I believe. However, plenty of off-sales establishments open for 24 hours a day, and the problems that that causes have been raised. A new fad has developed in drinking. I have observed it for myself when I have been out on patrol with my local police, and, sadly, I have seen the results in local accident and emergency departments, as well as in the A and E departments around the country that I have visited in my new capacity.
	The practice is commonly called pre-loading. Young people aged 18, 24 or 30 get half-cut before they go out, and they do it on very cheap alcohol. One of the excuses is that when they reach the pubs and clubs they find the alcohol very expensive. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central mentioned the 10 litre bottle of vodka. Shortly before the debate started, I asked in the Library what the duty and VAT on that would be. The answer was 9.31. Someone is losing an awful lot of money, and I do not believe it is the distillers, because they tell me that they are not. Somewhere along the line, there is an encouragement to sell alcohol very cheaply. In what are often large supermarkets that are open very late there is an encouragement not just to sell booze cheaplythe supermarkets would go bust very quickly if that were the casebut to get the footfall in the store and to encourage people to purchase other products while they are there; this is a loss-leading practice. While it is not for any Government to tell Tesco, Asda or Sainsbury's how to run their supermarkets, they have a moral responsibility to this country, and selling alcohol so cheaplysometimes, sadly, to under-age peopleis morally wrong.
	The cost to this country is not just to do with fashion, or some of our town centres being no-go areas at night, or our pubs changing. There is also the cost to the NHS and the cost to the health of the people of our country. The estimated current cost to the NHS of alcohol misuse is 1.7 billion, while at the same time we have hospitals and accident and emergency departments around the country closing. How much better could that money be spent within the NHS?
	Sadly, last year some 4,000 childrenunder-16 year oldswere treated for alcohol misuse. Those Members who go out on patrol in their constituencies with the police will have seen those children. They are the same age as many of our children. I went along with the police recently and they found a young lady lying on the local village cricket green. She was lying next to a bottle of vodka and several bottles of alcopops. There was no one else in sight because they had seen the police coming, but she was out of her brains so they left her. It was very dark, and if we had not seen her she would have lain there throughout the night unconscious from alcohol, and if she had vomited she would almost certainly have died. That shows that this is such a serious issue that we cannot just leave it alone and say, This has nothing to do with Parliament and Government. It is a fundamental role of this House and Government to do something about that. Violent crime is a matter that all Members have experienced in their constituencies. It is one of the subjects that people come to my surgery to talk to me about the most; it is one of the biggest worries of my constituents. Half of violent crime is alcohol-related.
	May I defend some of the staff in the pubs and clubs of this country? According to the figures I have, 83 per cent. of assaults on bar and club staff are the result of their having said, Nothat is, they are the result of them having done their job. I completely agree with Members who have said that the way forward is for the penalties for those trying to purchase alcohol in such circumstances to be as great, if not greater, than for those who sell it, because that is a big problem. Those who buy alcohol covertly for others, and those parentsI say this as a parentwho happily let their children go off to parties with half a bottle of vodka, should think about that; they should think about the damage they do to their families and the future of this country, because we know that addiction to alcohol often leads to addiction to other things.
	I therefore urge the Government to examine their drug strategy. Drug strategy units do fantastic work, but every time I visit one of them anywhere in the country the people who work there say to me that they cannot do their job without help from the Government to address the alcohol problems in the country. We cannot address drugs in isolation. We must deal with drink and drugs together, educate the community, and give the necessary powers to the people who are doing the work for us, so that we have a better society to live in.

Vernon Coaker: I agree very much with the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) that this has been a sensible and important debate. Frankly, it could have degenerated into a shouting match, with Members screaming at each other and trying to score points, but all Members have made intelligent contributions and tried to deal with the problems we face.
	I will not be able in the few minutes I have left to me before 3.28 pm to reply to the points that have been made in the depth that I think many Members would like. I therefore propose to read the  Hansard report of the debate and, with my officials, to compose letters to send to every contributor answering the specific points they have made. They may not agree with the response, but I shall send one that tries to deal with all the issues that have been raised, and I hope that is acceptable to hon. Members. If I do not take that approach, I shall simply not be able to address many of the points raised and, given the quality of the debate, people deserve a better response than that.
	We try to work with everyone on this matter. Considerable debate takes place with residents, the police, the industry, pubs and clubs, the off-trade, the on-trade, health groups and voluntary organisations, and I thank them all. One of the themes running through this debate, and one of the fundamental underpinning principles of the Safe, Sensible, Social alcohol strategy that we published in June, is that there is not just one solution. Alcohol poses different problems: the problem of children consuming alcohol; the problem of binge drinking, which usually is discussed in terms of 16 to 24-year-olds, but let us discuss it in relation to 18 to 26-year-olds to keep things legal; and the harmful effects of alcohol on people who drink considerable amountsthey may be of any age. Unless I have misunderstood the comments that have been made, I think any strategy worth its salt must address the different needs involved.
	The hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Hemel Hempstead mentioned the importance of local people. They will know that the alcohol strategy includes a requirement for each area to produce a local alcohol strategy to try to address the particular problems that it faces.
	Several hon. Members mentioned that not only is it illegal to sell alcohol to under-18s, but it is illegal for someone under 18 to try to purchase it. Some of the rebalancing that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) discussed is important in this regard. Both he and the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead touched on 24-hour licences. Although this issue makes a good debating point for people, the reality is that only 0.5 per cent. of all licensed premises5,100 premises in England and Waleshave a 24-hour licence.
	A huge number of other points were raised, not least of which were the need for a cultural change, cited by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh); people's concerns about pricing and promotion in supermarkets, which we are examining; and the whole social responsibility standards agenda, which we know we need to implement. I have only a few seconds left available to me, and I have not been able to do justice to all the contributions. I reiterate that I shall write to all hon. Members in response to the points that they have made. They may wish to enter into a written dialogue with me or meet me. I include my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) in that, in respect of the all-party group on beer
	 It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, the motion lapsed, without Question put.

Fisheries

Jonathan R Shaw: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of fisheries.
	I am pleased to open my first fisheries debate.  [Interruption.] We will be talking about pollocks later on. As in previous years, it is helpful that this debate is taking place before the December Fisheries Council, because it gives Members an opportunity to comment on behalf of their constituents, so I can take those comments with me to the negotiations. It also gives me a chance to highlight some important fisheries management issues that have arisen during the past year.
	First, I am sad to report that 10 fishermen lost their lives this year. That is a tragic reminder of the very real dangers of their way of life, and I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that our hearts go out to all the families who have suffered such tragic losses.
	The fisheries sector continues to make a significant contribution to the UK economy. Total landings of fish from UK vessels have increased for the second year running. Their value rose to 610 million last yearup 7 per cent. on 2005. The increase was shared across the UK and was mainly accounted for by an increase of almost a third in the value of the shellfish sector. Figures show that species such as crabs and lobsters are growing in value as a proportion of the total UK catch.

Andrew Miller: I am pleased to be the first to intervene on my hon. Friend in his new role. He is aware of the importance of the shellfish sector in the Dee estuary, where we are expecting a regulating order soon. Will he assure me that his Department will put every effort into producing that order, because there will be a record harvest next year, which will leave the door open for black marketeers? We want the investment to go to legitimate fishermen.

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend has raised this issue with me on behalf of his constituents. I will look into the matter of the order, because he is right: we want to stamp out illegal fishing and I shall deal with that issue later in my speech.
	There has been a decline in the value of landings such as mackerel and cod. However, I am pleased to report that the value of exports of fish and fish products has also risenup to 944 million last year. Fishing provides employment for some 13,000 fishermen, around 18,000 people engaged in the processing sector and many more in ancillary businesses.
	As well as providing economic revenue and employment, fishing is an important food source. It is part of our heritage, and it is of social and cultural importance, contributing both to rich and sustainable environments and traditional livelihoods. During the visits that I have made to fishing ports, I have been struck by the importance and relevance of fishing to local communities. Unsustainable fishing activity, however, can damage our marine ecosystems, threatening the very resources on which fishermen, our many sea anglers and others depend. It is vital, therefore, that all stakeholders work together to achieve sustainability, thus safeguarding the marine environment and the fishing way of life for generations to come.

Robert Smith: I am glad that the Minister recognises the need for sustainability. To that end, will he pay tribute to the lead taken by Scottish fishermen in the technical measures that they introduced to reduce the impact on cod fisheries to allow the cod to recover, as is now happening?

Jonathan R Shaw: Absolutely. We have been working across the sector and the voluntary real-time closures that have been proposed by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation are welcome. We now need to see the proof and the outcome. We have also put in place other measures, which I shall mention later.

Michael Weir: Is the Minister aware that the EU is still proposing a reduction in days at sea for Scottish fishermen, despite the fact that they are reckoned to be the most environmentally friendly fishermen in Europe? Will he resist the call for a reduction at the Fisheries Council?

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a UK position has been agreed with all my colleagues. We will put forward a range of different measures, rather than the crude cuts in days at sea. If fishermen are taking responsible actionas the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) reminded ussome recognition of that is necessary. That is the way forward

David Drew: Will the Minister assure me that any decision will be based on sound science? Given that at the moment the science on recovery of cod stocks is at best unclear, every precaution must be taken so that we do not rush back into overfishing, because of the damage that it has done in the past and would do in the future.

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All our negotiating positions for the December Council meeting will be based on science. We receive the science from the Commission and from our own scientists, both in Scotland and in the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. It is right to base our decisions on science and sustainability. What we all want is fish today and fish tomorrow. That is important for conservation and for the industry.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the Minister accept that haddock is a sustainable fishery? If he does, can he explain the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who asked him about companies who have contracts to supply his Department with fish? The Minister answered:
	On a particular day, not Friday, they
	the people from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs sites
	will offer their customers the opportunity to sample, sustainable white fish alternatives to Cod and Haddock.[ Official Report, 15 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 337W.]
	I can see the arguments with regard to cod, but does he accept that bracketing haddock with cod was somewhat unfortunate and will he look again at that answer and clarify it?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful for that intervention. In my reply to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), I sought to demonstrate that there are alternatives to cod and haddock. For far too long, the nation has had a limited diet when it comes to fish. As I said in Question Time this morning, red gurnard is a species that used to be discarded but is now proving very popular. It is so mainstream that it is being served on High Speed 1, so people can eat that wonderful fish while enjoying the wonderful Kent countryside on the wonderful new line that this Government have developed.  [ Interruption. ] I should have said, this wonderful Government.
	There has been a concern that, while haddock are being sought, cod get caught up in the nets. Importantly, a new net has been developed in America that catches haddock but allows cod to escape. That relates to what hon. Members were referring to earlier. There will be trials of the new net, which is called the eliminator. I am not sure that that is the most appropriate name, but we are stuck with it. I do not know whether it comes from California. The net has won a number of prizes in America. We will all take a great interest in the trials, which will take place in the North sea.

Robert Goodwill: On the sustainability of cod, does the Minister accept that 95 per cent. of the cod consumed in this country is imported from waters off the Faroes, Norway and Iceland? That is a sustainable fishery. It is only the cod over which he and his EU colleagues have control that is not sustainable.

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I will talk later in my speech about the amount of fish that we import.
	I want to outline some of the primary elements of our work over the past year to get us closer to achieving sustainability. This year, we have focused on developing a long-term strategy for sustainable fisheriesFisheries 2027. I launched our vision in October this year and it sets out what we want to achieve. It will drive reform and provide a clear framework to steer the future direction of our policies.
	Achieving sustainability is not just something for the Government, however, and it is not something that can be delivered overnight. Stakeholders have welcomed our vision and the leadership that it demonstrates. We are developing a shared implementation plan with people across the sectorfishermen, anglers, processors, retailers, customers and environmental groupsto turn our words into delivery, so that we can achieve sustainability together. We have a shared desire to achieve sustainability and a shared responsibility, locally and globally. We have a long way to go with this ambitious agenda, but the Government are committed to it and to playing their part.
	Working collaboratively is vital if we are to realise the changes that we want to achieve. I am pleased that fishermen have been working closely with scientists through our fisheries science partnership. That has built up trust between often sceptical fishermen and my scientific advisers, leading to improved fisheries research overall. There are other examples of such activity: for instance, earlier this year fishermen and anglers worked collaboratively to draw up the recreational sea angling strategy that I published for consultation this morning.
	To achieve sustainability, we need to build stocks. We must also put the right regulatory framework in place, both domestically and at the European level, to enable the fishing industry, sea angling businesses and others who depend on this vital resource to operate efficiently, profitably and in an environmentally responsible manner. We need a clearer, simpler and more transparent rights-based system for accessing fisheries, and we must make sure that the economic and social benefits from fishing, whether commercial or recreational, are shared fairly.
	At a European level, we want the 2012 reform of the common fisheries policy to result in a decisive break with micro-management from Brussels and a major shift in long-term management plans for key stocks. We want the fishing industry and other stakeholders to be more fully engaged in the regional advisory councils, which need a more central role. We want a dramatic reduction in the number of annual decisions and in the volume of EU legislation. In addition, we need to make sure that our policies do not result in unintended negative impacts such as the tragic discards of North sea cod about which we heard this morning.
	To achieve all those things, however, we need to work closely with our European partners so that we tackle the challenges together. We also need to work collaboratively across the UK, as we will have much more influence and be more effective in delivering real reform if the UK speaks with one voice.

Angus MacNeil: Does the Minister agree that it would be easier for him to make his case at the top table in Europe if he had the ally of an independent Scotland sitting shoulder to shoulder beside him?

Jonathan R Shaw: If the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party is to pull out of the CFP, he will not be at any table. As the UK representative, I work with the Administrations of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and, after a very good process of negotiation, we have agreed our position.

Angus MacNeil: Does the Minister perhaps feel that Scotland would be better off going toe to toe with the EU, as Norway does, as opposed to having to take part in horse trading afterwards?

Jonathan R Shaw: Members of the EU cannot pick and mix their policies. They cannot say, We'll be part of this but not part of that. Signing up to the EU means signing up to all of its policies, so leaving the CFP would mean leaving the EU. However, as long as there is a UK Government, we will work with our partners and allies to develop a new CFP with much more effective regional councils. To achieve that, all member states must work together.
	We must not try to manage fisheries in isolation. We are bringing forward proposals for a marine Bill that will give us the modern, streamlined, forward-looking management framework that we need if we are to achieve sustainable marine development. The proposed legislation will streamline regulation and make our marine laws more effective. It will provide the better, smarter, clearer regulation that fits with the Government's broader policies of good regulation.
	The integrated package of measures in the marine Bill will include proposals for a system of marine planning, as well as stronger arrangements for protecting marine nature and a streamlining of the process by which marine works such as wind farms are licensed. The Bill will also set out proposals to reform the sea fisheries committees and make them responsible for inshore fisheries management. The reform will be underpinned by a shift towards an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management.
	In short, the Bill will provide much better co-ordination between the management of new systems and those already in place, with a stronger focus on sustaining our marine resources.
	About two thirds of the fish that we eat is importeda fact referred to by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill)so we have a responsibility to contribute to the sustainability of fisheries globally. We are therefore leading global efforts to stop illegal fishing, which is a major threat to the sustainable management of fish stocks, and to biodiversity. It also threatens the livelihoods and basic food supplies of coastal communities. Illegal fishing is valued at $1 billion a year in sub-Saharan Africa alone. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), and I are working closely with businesses to address environmental issues and develop work on those concerns.
	The work on illegal fishing follows on from the very good progress made by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), who was an excellent Fisheries Minister for a number of years. He championed that cause in his role as chair of the high seas task force. As the UK leads on the issue, I highlighted the importance of addressing the problem at the recent ministerial meeting on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in Lisbon. I underlined the important role of UK fisheries, and retail and processing companies, that are developing systems to trace food from trawl to plate. In the European Commission we are championing seamless systems, such as those used by Young's Bluecrest in Grimsby, so that minimal regulatory burdens are created when we regulate to prevent illegal fish imports.

Austin Mitchell: I echo the Minister's praise for Young's, a firm of which we in Grimsby are very proud. The principles of traceability and sustainability are embodied in the new Great Grimsby range of fish products. All other fish fingers are now made in Germany by Birds Eye. At the party conference, our party leader praised the principle of British fish fingers for British consumers.

Jonathan R Shaw: No one will disagree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right: British fish fingers are now made in Grimsby. I know that my hon. Friend is retiring from the House.

Austin Mitchell: No.

Jonathan R Shaw: Oh, he is not. That was clearly a fisherman's tale, then. Birds Eye now produces fish fingers in Germany; perhaps Young's needs a figurehead to promote Grimsby fish fingers, and I can think of no one better to display on its boxes of fish fingers than my hon. Friend.
	Before I report on our priorities at the December Fisheries Council, I should like to mention other matters of importance, and to state what progress has been made this year. Many of our stocks remain in a fragile state, but there are signs of recovery. For the first time in eight years, the International Council for the Exploration of the SeaICEShas advised a non-zero catch for North sea cod. That is because fishing mortality has reduced to lower than precautionary levels, allowing the size of the mature stock to rebuild relatively rapidly to above the biologically safe level of 70,000 by 2009.
	The improved situation has been achieved in part by the 2005 year class of cod approaching maturity. Importantly, because we have managed to cut the fishing pressure on cod, it is now at about 50 per cent. of its peak level, and is at a level that ICES terms sustainable. I shall return to that issue in the context of the forthcoming negotiations, but I highlight it now to demonstrate the action and responsibility that stakeholders across the sector have taken and the genuine sacrifices that people have made to achieve long-term sustainability. That joint action in pursuit of a shared goal was demonstrated in March, when stakeholders worked together to find more effective ways to assist the recovery of the Community's cod stocks. That is indicative of the increasing role that stakeholders are playing in fisheries management.
	We still have a lot to learn from fishermen and other people closely involved with the domestic fishing industry. The UK championed the establishment of regional advisory councils in the last round of common fisheries policy reforms in 2002, and the councils are now beginning to bear fruit in developing practical ideas to improve fisheries management. A significant number of recommendations made by regional advisory councils on, for instance, the cod recovery plan, the future of the Shetland box and the management of bottom gill nets have all been embraced by the Commission, member states and the fishing industry alike.
	Stakeholders across the sector have shown leadership, and have taken action to improve the sustainability of fisheries. I am delighted that an industry-led shellfish strategy was published earlier this year, setting out a framework for achieving a sustainable and profitable shellfish sector. The next step is implementation and making a real difference on the ground. I am pleased that the industry is approaching that with equal vigour. I wish it every success, and I will help where I can to achieve those outcomes. The industry is involved with our science programmes to establish trust and a shared understanding of fish stocks. In particular, the fisheries science partnership brings together fishermen and scientists to address a range of problems. This year's programme includes: putting bottom panels into the nets of south-western beam trawlers to release unwanted by-catch and improve the quality of the fish; looking at the survival rates of rays caught and released in the Thames and the Bristol channel; and plotting the distribution of cod across the whole of the North sea. Most importantly, a series of projects around the coast have been used to monitor the state of particular stocks, and for the first time the data generated have been used in international stock assessments, thus directly contributing to more effective fisheries management. I thank everyone involved in those projects.
	Balancing the opportunities to catch fish with the available resource is one of the biggest challenges for fisheries management. There is a particular challenge this yearthe quota available for vessels under 10 m in length and the creation of a sustainable inshore fishing fleet. That will require action in both the short and the long term. I have met a number of hon. Members and their staff to discuss the issue. I have spoken to many of the under-10 m fleets, and I am pursuing proposals for next year.

Andrew George: The Minister mentioned the positive and constructive role played by the industry in initiatives such as regional advisory councils and through other means. He will know that the Trevose closure off the north Cornish coast is entering its third year. Has he had an opportunity to review the success of measures such as closed areas, as opposed to a continued dependence on quotas? There is significant concern about the problem of discards, and it is not possible in the present scheme to distinguish between an intended and unintended over-quota catch.

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is right. We need to look at closures, as I suggested to hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies. If the councils can develop and mature, closures will take place to ensure that juvenile stocks are avoided. That is how we should reform the common fisheries policy, rather than undertake a rather crude cut in days at sea. That will certainly be part of our negotiating position on North sea cod in December. More widely, that is how we want the CFP to develop, and we will be actively involved in such measures.

Robert Goodwill: I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way again. Given what he said about learning from skippers and people in the industry, has he, like me, had the opportunity to go out with a potting vessel inshore, or perhaps deepshore for white fish, to see at first hand the associated problems and the discards going back into the water?

Jonathan R Shaw: I regret that since my appointment, I have not been out on a fishing boat. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the price of fuel and the fact that boats are often unsure how long they will be out. In his constituency, fishermen are rather reliant on the weather. However, a number of my officials have made trips on fishing vessels. I have visited a range of fisheries across the UK and it is my intention, after I have dealt with the Fisheries Council in December, to go out on a fishing vessel next year. Perhaps that will be off Scarborough.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that he will bring the seasickness tablets. I am very grateful.
	Our seas support a wide range of productive ecosystems that sustain extensive fishing industries as well as tourism, angling, diving, boating and other activities. We need to conserve these ecosystems to provide rich resources today and for future generations.

Roger Williams: The Minister is right to highlight the rich and diverse ecosystem for which he is responsible. In my constituency we have an invasion of signal crayfish, an American type of crayfish that is driving out white crayfishthe British crayfish. As I understand it, permission for the introduction of that species was given by the Environment Agency. Should we not be very cautious when we allow non-native species to be introduced because of the potential effect on the ecosystems that we treasure?

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I shall look into the matter that he has raised on behalf of his area.
	The major event before the year end is, of course, the December Fisheries Council where total allowable catches and other measures such as setting days at sea for cod fishing will be decided for 2008. The European Commission recently published its proposals for the regulation that sets the limits for 2008. Given the poor status of some of the key stocks, it is likely to be a significant challenge to deliver the necessary stock recovery while ensuring the long-term viability of the European fleet.
	Following the EU's negotiations with Norway, we agreed the TACs for several North sea species, including a cod TAC increase of 11 per cent., to which I referred this morning. This is a significant step, but only one step, in helping fisheries managers to reduce discards. We need to look at more innovative and creative ways to avoid catching too much cod in the first place. The UK is committed to reduce discarding in fisheries that catch cod. The UK is piloting a number of measures to that end, such as the voluntary real-time closures pilot in Scotland, which I have mentioned.

Andrew George: Will the Minister give way?

Jonathan R Shaw: For the last time. Many other hon. Members wish to speak.

Andrew George: I shall be quick. Given that in the western approaches the quota of cod was caught in the early autumn, it is clear from the recruitment and mortality rates that cod stocks are recovering. Will the Minister bear that in mind when he is negotiating in Europe? It is clear to the fishermen in the south-west that the quota does not match the health of the stock.

Jonathan R Shaw: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have visited the south-west. I have not yet been to Newlyn, but I have been to Brixham. Many fishermen there tell me that they have had a very good year, not least for catching alternative fishes. Cuttlefish in particular have sold well. It is interesting that they are exported. When we go on holiday to Spain and other countries we eat cuttlefish there, but we do not seem to eat it in this country. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. In all these matters we need to balance conservation and ensuring that the fisheries are viable. I have said throughout my speech that we need to engage with the fishermen, but there need to be partnerships with the science as well.
	The UK managed also to prevent too large a cut in the amount of haddock available to fishermen. This is important because, if we are to encourage fishermen not to catch too much cod, they will need other stocks to fish. We were also successful in limiting Norway's proposed 80 per cent. cut in the TAC for whiting to a 25 per cent. reduction. That was a reasonable outcome, given the uncertainty in the scientific indicators for this species.
	We supported the Commission in seeking to limit the extent of the cut in the herring TAC in line with the unanimously agreed pelagic regional advisory council position, and we regret the fact that Norway was unable to accept that advice. I am sure that the Scottish National party Members heard that; Norway does not always get it right.
	I have jointly agreed with Michelle Gildernew, Richard Lochhead and Elin Jones, my colleagues in the devolved Administrations, the UK priorities for the December Fisheries Council. Those include resisting further blunt cuts in days at sea in favour of more focused management measures designed to reduce fishing mortality, such as real-time closures, increased use of more selective gear and new incentives to avoid catching cod. Those appropriate options are currently being discussed with UK industry.
	We will also seek to ensure that there are no cuts in total allowable catch for stocks in respect of which the Commission's justification is simply that the quotas have not been taken up in previous years; unused quotas are not necessarily indicative of reduced availability, but often reflect fishermen's reactions to varying market conditions for particular stocks. We need to maintain that potential flexibility.
	As I mentioned earlier, the scientific work undertaken in collaboration with the industry is bearing fruit, and we intend to deploy the latest material to support our case when it suggests that the advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea is not sufficiently current. I am also pleased to report that, following concerted pressure from the UKin particular during our presidencythe Commission and ICES have developed an improved timetable of scientific advice and consultation in the run-up to December's meeting. From next year, ICES will release its scientific advice in July, thereby enabling earlier publication of proposals by the Commission. That will allow more time to consult the regional advisory councils and other stakeholders, and to influence the Commission's formal proposals. That is clearly a welcome development.
	I am pleased to have made my first address in this fisheries debate and to see so many Members here. I look forward to hearing their contributions.

Bill Wiggin: I pay tribute to the brave fishermen who have lost their lives in the past 12 months. We should always remember that fishing is a dangerous occupation; sadly, fishing families and communities suffer terrible tragedies. I also pay tribute to Fishermen's Mission, whose badge I am wearingthat unique charity, founded in 1881, deserves our thanks.
	I welcome the Minister to his new role. We all know about the importance of science in fisheries, but in the next five years the Government will cut the minimum budget for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science from 30.9 million in 2008-09 to 28.8 million in 2012-13.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing those statistics. He will be aware that we have agreed 10 years of funding for CEFAS; that has never happened before. It is essential that science has long-term stability. We have worked with our scientists at CEFAS to ensure that there is long-term sustainability for all the important work that they will undertakerather than things being decided year by year, as under the Tory Government.

Bill Wiggin: So the Minister does not dispute the fact that he is cutting the budget.
	Despite the important role of the Marine Fisheries Agency for fisheries management, the Minister has not outlined what its funding will be for the 2008-09 to 2010-11 comprehensive spending review period. He has said warm and welcoming words about CEFAS, but the same has not been done for the Marine Fisheries Agency, which is already under pressure because the 90 per cent. target for entering information into the fisheries database within five days is only just being met.
	The Minister also needs to confirm that the demands for the forthcoming electronic recording and reporting requirements are met. Like CEFAS, the MFA needs financial stability to function and meet its targets. If the Government cannot provide it, I suspect that our fisheries will suffer.
	The questionable financial management of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs means that in forthcoming years the number of Royal Navy fisheries protection service patrol days has been slashed. Between 1997 and 2006 there was an annual average of 981 days provided by about 10 different vesselsHunt class, Island class and River class. Under the new contract, which begins in April 2008, only three River class offshore patrol vessels have been contracted to provide 700 patrol days in 2008-09, potentially reducing to just 600 patrol days in two years' time. By comparison, this year, the three River class vessels provided 620 days, complemented by the further 225 patrol days provided by the other five Hunt class vessels. Moreover, there were some 41 days when there were no River class vessels on task, and a davit fault resulted in all of them being recalled for five of those daysfrom 15 to 19 June. Should that happen again, no enforcement vessels will be available at all, and the House will understand that no fisheries policies are workable without adequate enforcement.
	We should be proud of the officers of HMS Severn, who have had several successes, including bringing the Belgian trawler De Marie Louise to justice for under-recording catches of plaice and using blinders illegally to catch 4,000 undersized sole. They have also boarded the French stern trawler, Saint Jacques II, in the North sea, leading to a successful prosecution for misrecording cod as black sea bream. Of course, we need to work with the industry and our foreign counterparts to improve enforcement, but I warn the Minister about relying on just three vessels to patrol 80,000 square miles.
	Most European Union countries will soon start to receive their European fisheries fund moneys for 2007 to 2013, because they are likely to have had their operational programmes approved by the Commission by the end of this year. Some 97 million of that money is available to the UK fishing sector to help our fishing industry to grow and become more sustainable and environmentally friendly. So how is DEFRA getting on with delivering it? The autumn 2006 edition of Fishing Focus declared that the operation programme would be developed by this time last year. In its most recent business plan, DEFRA promised to deliver the EFF by April 2008. However, instead of the fishing industry looking forward to receiving that money in the new year, like most of Europe, no one will be able to access it because DEFRA proved itself unable to develop an operation programme, consult on it and submit it to the Commission for approval by the end of the year.
	Last week, the Minister announced that an agreement had finally been reached with the devolved Administrations on the budget split, which he had blamed for the delay. The headline on the DEFRA press release read: 97 million boost for UK fishing and seafood industries. The Scottish National party expressed its delight at having
	negotiated hard to achieve the lion's share of the UK's allocation of the European Fisheries Fund.
	Yet by the Minister's own admission, the programme is unlikely to occur until late 2008. DEFRA has missed its own targets, will miss the Commission's deadlines, and now faces the risk of being fined by the Commission. The UK could lose almost 19 million of EFF allocated for 2007. At this rate, its delivery might even compete for incompetence with the delivery of the single farm payment.
	Without doubt, one of the most important innovations that we need in order to manage our seas in a sustainable manner is the marine Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for showing us the way with his private Member's Bill. Time and again, the Government promised that it was a key part of DEFRA's five-year strategy launched in 2004; time and again, they have failed to deliver. We were supposed to get a marine Bill in draft form two years ago. Then we were informed by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), the then Minister, that there would be a real marine Bill in the current Session. Now we know that there is only a draft Bill pencilled in for the coming spring. Can the Minister give us a commitment that that legislation will be on the statute book before the next general election? I did not think so.  [ Interruption. ] The Minister wishes me to give way; I will gladly do so if he can tell us when the general election will be.  [ Interruption. ] Oh, he does not want me to give way after all.
	DEFRA, the self-proclaimed
	policy custodian for the marine and aquatic environment,
	is failing to live up to its name. What kind of policy custodian for the marine and aquatic environment fails to protect the pink sea fan of Lyme bay, which is supposed to be a protected speciesprotected by whom?bans British vessels from pair trawling only to have foreign vessels lawfully come into our 12-mile limit and sweep up our bass while killing and wounding dolphins and porpoises, or plans marine protected areas that will apply only to British vessels? The marine Bill must be introduced as soon as possible, and its measures must be sound and robust. The Minister must press his European counterparts into accepting provisions that impact on fisheries.
	The marine Bill must also deliver real reform to sea fisheries committees, which will mean ensuring that the nation's more than 1 million recreational sea anglers are involved in fisheries and marine management. In my party, we recognise the benefits that sea anglers bring to the UK. It is an industry worth 1 billion and 19,000 jobs, which is why I tabled early-day motion 468. We want to see bigger fish, and more of them. We want an end to discards, we want anglers to be given greater representation on sea fisheries committees, and most of all we want effective management that will deliver more and bigger fish.
	In contrast, despite its spin, Labour has let sea anglers down. Net Benefits recommended that developing the inshore sector included the management of recreational sea angling interests. We were promised a recreational sea angling strategy by March last year, but it is being published only today, in December. Has the Minister realised that it will be difficult for Britain's sea anglers to trust Labour and take the RSA seriously, when he has already let down anglers over bass, or when his plans to introduce sea angling licences, bag limits and no-take zones could reduce RSA participation by 60 per cent., as was seen when similar measures were introduced in Portugal? We have heard it all before, and now, I suspect, the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) will tell us it all again.

Martin Salter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for plagiarising a large section of my speech on bass minimum landing size. Will he confirm whether the Conservatives now support the introduction of a minimum landing size for bass? Yes or no?

Bill Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether he is still Labour's spokesman for angling?

Martin Salter: Yes.

Bill Wiggin: If he is, how come he has not been given a job, despite doing that for 10 years? Is it not the case that nobody believes what the Labour party says about fishing any more? Part of the hon. Gentleman's problem is that he has been going up and down the country telling people that Labour cares about angling, when the reality is that it does not. I shall finish my bit on angling and tell him why he and his party have failed sea anglers so badly.
	In the foreword to Labour's Charter for Angling, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), paid
	tribute to the close working relationship between Labour politicians and the world of angling.
	He went on to comment that the Labour Government would be committed to the bass management plan, saying:
	It was anglers' concern for the conservation status of sea bass that has persuaded me to agree to implement much of the excellent bass management plan put forward by the Bass Anglers Sport Fishing Society.
	In the introduction, the hon. Member for Reading, West wrote,
	angling representatives have direct access to government ministers and a voice in policy making. Labour has demonstrated by word and action that we are the most pro-angling political party in Britain.
	What rubbish.
	What actions have the Labour Government delivered to sea anglers? The reforms proposed in Net Benefits to
	review the evidence supporting arguments for re-designating commercially caught species for wholly recreational sea angling beginning with bass by the end of 2004
	were not developed. On bass specifically, Labour promised a minimum landing size, and it got the entire sea angling community's hopes up, including those of the hon. Member for Reading, West, only to disappoint them by postponing their plans at the last minute, completing the U-turn a few weeks ago.
	Labour was so focused on introducing a minimum landing size that it was blinded to the other measures, such as netting restrictions and bass nursery areas, which the Minister is now claiming to be reviewing. Had DEFRA taken a comprehensive approach from the startI hope that this helps the Ministerthen, despite backtracking on the minimum landing size, other measures may have been implemented by now to protect bass stocks. Instead, sea anglers continue to be let down by Labour.
	Net Benefits offered sea anglers hope with sentiments such as:
	Fisheries management policy should recognise that sea angling may, in some circumstances, provide a better return on the use of some resources than commercial exploitation.
	Little progress was made on that and little is likely to be made with the new RSA strategy, which does little more than echo sentiments expressed previously about minimum landing sizes, protected areas and management plans. With its slowness to implement proposals and its discreditable handling of the bass minimum landing size, is it any wonder that DEFRA is the byword for incompetence?

Martin Salter: It is touching to hear a Conservative Front Bencher quoting from Labour's Charter for Angling. If the hon. Gentleman had carried on reading it, he would have seen a section committing us to inshore netting restrictions and bass nursery areas. To give the Minister credit, he has committed himself to that aspect of the bass management plan. I could not have been more scathing in my comments about the decision to go back on a bass minimum landing size. However, I must press the hon. Gentleman again on where the Conservative party stands on that issue. It is all very well trying to make political capital out of it, but is his party in favour of ityes or no?

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman had his answerif he was paying attention. There are plenty of other things that he could have done with his job that the Minister could have done or that the Minister's predecessors could have done. However, they did not. They focused on bass minimum landing sizes, and then failed. [Hon. Members: What would you have done?] It is no good asking me what I would have done, for I was not in government. I hope that the hon. Member for Reading, West was not trying to make political points but wanting to save bass. If that was his genuine concern, he would know that the bass management plan contained far more than just minimum landing sizes, none of which has been done. That is the problem that he has to face up to. He went round the country telling people that his prime concern was saving bass, and the evidence shows that the Government have done none of it.
	The Minister may now be content to talk about nursery areas, but it is 10 years too late. What a shame that all that time has been wasted. When it comes to scoring political points, I suspect that it is the hon. Member for Reading, West who is doing so, with his passion for such things rather than delivering proper policy that would have been more useful for people who want to fish for bass. If he wants to intervene again and repeat the question, he is most welcome.

Michael Jabez Foster: The question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) is one that my constituents in Hastings and Rye and under-10 m fishermen around the country will want to know the answer to. They will want to be sure that, should there be a Conservative Government, they will not go back on the Minister's wise decision to hold off imposing a size of bass that is different from that in any other European country. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of the greater size or not?

Bill Wiggin: There is a genuine problem that I shall not be able to solve. The hon. Gentleman is trying to get me to commit to policy, which I shall not do at this Dispatch Box today, no matter how much I might like to. However, because his question is valid, I shall give him the firm assurance that, like him and his fishermen, we want a sustainable future for fishing. That means bigger fish and more of them. That is exactly what we want to deliver. I think that the Government have got it wrong, because bass should be allowed to spawn. If they are killed before they reach the length of 42 cm, that will not happen. I do not believe that the minimum landing size alone would have delivered that future for bass, but if we are taking the Bass Anglers Sportfishing Society's plan for bass management, we should have included the minimum landing size. That is not a straight answer, and I can only say I am sorry for that. I would not have started from this point, and that is why it is difficult. However, the hon. Gentleman's fishermen at home should be more than content with the knowledge that we want to deliver the future that they need, which they will get under a Conservative Government.
	Does anyone else want to have a go on minimum landing sizes?

Andrew George: My point is not on minimum landing sizes, and I hesitate to intrude on the spat between the Conservative and Labour parties. However, the hon. Gentleman said that the issue had needed to be addressed for the past 10 years, and I agree with him. In order to reassure me that this is not merely political opportunism, because there is clearly a strong bandwagon campaigning in favour of sea anglers, will he reassure Members about what the Conservatives did to support sea anglers during their 18 years of custodianshipby giving them a seat at sea fisheries committees, for example?

Bill Wiggin: If the hon. Gentleman reads the early-day motion that I have tabled, he will find that very reassuring. We have called for strengthening of those sea fisheries committees.

Andrew George: What did you do?

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman asks what I did; I was not here 10 years ago. What a shame! Things might have been much better if that had been the case, but it was not

Simon Burns: We did quite well without you.

Bill Wiggin: My Whip is reminding me that things went pretty well without me; I think I shall have to stop at that point before we get drawn into the benefits of history.
	All the interventions miss a serious point. Surely, what we all want is better, bigger and more fish in our seas. Tragically, the Government are not delivering that. It is a great shame.
	Let me consider the Commission's proposal for the December Fisheries Council meeting. The 11 per cent. increase in North sea cod is welcome. It means a welcome change for the fishing industry, especially after successive years of no-catch advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. If cod recovery continues, and new measures are taken to reduce mixed fishery by-catch, I hope that, next year, our fishermen can receive a greater reward for their sacrifices. However, it should also be noted that the ICES advice was for a 50 per cent. reduction on the 2006 catch.
	Last year, I asked the then Minister whether he trusted the advice of the fishermen or that of the scientists. I am sure that hon. Members would like to know the Under-Secretary's positionfishermen or scientists?

Jonathan R Shaw: That is precisely the problem. It is no good saying, One or the other. It is essential to have the fish-science partnershipspeople working together. Throughout my speech, I referred to people working together. Fishermen need that, and it ensures sustainability for the fishery fishermen and the conservation of stocks for tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to a word that I said. It is no good having a polarised debate. Fishermen know that and he should wake up and understand it.

Bill Wiggin: It is no good the Under-Secretary trying to give us lectures, because the evidence contradicts his comments. In the past 10 years, nothing has been done to heal the gap between what fishermen see and throw back and what scientists believe is there. That is a fundamental problem.  [Interruption.] It is no good the Under-Secretary lecturing from a sedentary position, because he will ultimately have to make the choice. I look forward to his returning from the December meeting and announcing his successes or failures. If I were in his shoes, I would want the gap to close. I do not blame him for saying what he did, but I do not believe that he can support it with any evidence.

Michael Weir: Far be it from me to give aid and comfort to the Government, but does not the hon. Gentleman accept that measures such as the real-time closures represent a major step forward in trying to bridge the gap between fishermen and science, which has dogged fisheries negotiations for so long?

Bill Wiggin: I agree that it is the right way forward. I should like much more to be done. We are not even close to closing the gap.

Michael Weir: It is a start.

Bill Wiggin: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman must accept that the gap is still there.

Jonathan R Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bill Wiggin: I will in a momentthe Under-Secretary must keep calm. He has only just got the job. I cannot say, Keep your hair on, but I can say, Keep calm.
	The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) made a valid point. The Under-Secretary is right that steps need to be taken. I would argue that not enough is being done, and that steps are not being taken fast enough or effectively enough.

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is getting on to a better footing after asking whether I agreed with the fishermen or the scientists. He has moved to a much better position. As the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) said, it is not a case of polarised positions. Polarisation is the worst thing to do. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) has moved on. Does he accept that there will be no more them and us and that it is all about working together?

Bill Wiggin: I should love to believe the Under-Secretary and I am sure that he means well. However, we heard all that last time, and when the then Minister came back, he had arrived at a position somewhere between ICES advice and what the fishermen asked him to deliver. It is no good saying that one group is right or one group is wrong and landing somewhere in the middle. That has always happened in the past. The Government have compromised and delivered neither the scientific advice nor what the fishermen request. Let us see how the Under-Secretary gets on at the December conference. I wish him luck, but until the gap is closed, things will be difficult for him.
	At the December Fisheries Council meeting, we hope that the Under-Secretary will impress on his European counterparts the importance of reform and change. Moreover, if the Government are serious about making a long-term difference, the Minister and his EU counterparts must get to grips with the problem of discards. The EU has estimated that 40 to 60 per cent. of fish that trawlers in the North sea catch are discarded. In the last quarter of 2006, the discard rate for North sea cod caught by English and Welsh vessels in the North sea was 43.8 per cent. The discard rate by Scottish vessels for west of Scotland haddock was 42.2 per cent., and that for west of Scotland saithe was 62.7 per cent. in the third quarter of 2006. A staggering 83.5 per cent. of west of Scotland whiting was discarded in the third quarter of 2006. That means that 246.3 tonnes were discarded but only 48.6 tonnes were landed. That is the scale of the problem and the harsh reality faced by our fishermen, bound by the rigidity of the quota system and some of the unsustainable management measures currently in place. The Minister is reported as saying:
	Throwing back...fish is heart-breaking
	and immoral. However, unless he and his European counterparts have the political will to grasp the nettle, they will be the heartbreakers.
	During last year's fisheries debate, I called on the Government to make 2007
	the year that discards are tackled.[ Official Report, 14 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 1059.]
	So far, however, the progress needed to end this wasteful and environmentally damaging practice has not been made. The EU discard atlas, due to be completed by next year, has not even been put out to tender, and the Minister has admitted that it is
	not yet clear when it will commence.[ Official Report, 28 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 513W.]
	According to the European Commission's 2002 community action plan, discard pilot schemes were to be set up. There are two in the UKone in the North sea and a joint scheme with Ireland in the Irish sea, which started only recently. However, as Ministers have admitted:
	Details of pilot projects undertaken by other member states are not available.[ Official Report, 18 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 1431-32W.]
	One is left wondering why there appears to be such an appalling lack of commitment and joint working on the matter.
	The community action plan also indicated that the EU was planning to eliminate discards by 2006. That date has passed, but despite the Government's holding the presidency of the EU in the latter half of 2005, the best excuse that they could give was:
	There hasn't been the detailed analysis at Community level of the various options identified in the report that was anticipated.[ Official Report, 15 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 1365W.]
	Now the Minister's answer to the discard problem is to argue for an increase in quota. Of course we should argue for an increase in quota to support our fishermen when the stocks are available, but that is not a long-term solution to the problem of discards, and if the Minister thinks that increasing total allowable catches is the answer to discarding, he should apply that logic universally to all stocks, such as whiting and haddock, on which there will be further cuts this year. When are we going to get a coherent policy on discards from DEFRA? We believe that as long as Labour is in government, discarding will continue.
	We also recognise that part of the solution to discarding and by-catch is to prevent the active 10 m and under vessels from running out of quota so early in the year. One of the most important challenges that the Minister faces is to ensure that they get a fair deal; but we have already had the Net Benefits reportalmost four years agowhich advocated long-term strategic planning for the inshore sector. In Charting a New Course in 2005, DEFRA boasted of how it had already taken the advice of Net Benefits and
	set up a policy team responsible for coastal waters...including inshore management.
	There is also the inshore fisheries working group, with which the Minister has admitted he has not discussed quota management. However, between 1998 and 2004, the number of 10 m and under vessels registered in England and Wales fell from 3,342 to 3,004, while the total number in the UK has fallen from 5,474 to 4,979a drop of 9 per cent. We have had all the talk from Labour, but no action and no long-term strategic management plan.

Michael Jabez Foster: I am encouraged by the hon. Gentleman's apparent support for the 10 m and under sector. I join him in that support. However, I want to be absolutely clear, so that there is no misunderstanding: is he prepared to say unequivocally that some of the over-10 m share should be redistributed to the under- 10 m sector? Yes or no?

Bill Wiggin: It is so tempting to make policy on the hoof, but I am not going to do it. When we come forward with our proposals, they will be carefully considered. However, again to give the hon. Gentleman's constituents hope, there must be serious consideration of how just 3 per cent. of our national quota goes to 76 per cent. of our fleet. That cannot be right, and it is not sustainable. That is the best that the hon. Gentleman will get out of me today. Be assured of one thing, however: the issue has never been far from the front of my mind and it is one that we intend to tackle effectively in government, to the benefit of the under-10 m sector.
	This year had barely begun when it became apparent that not enough quota had been allocated to the inshore fleet. Just 2 or 3 per cent. of quota had been allocated to 76 per cent. of the UK's fishing vessels. The Government do not even have a view on how much quota the sector should have or the fish that it should be landing. That sector should not be dependent on gifts, or on in-year and cross-year quota swaps. When asked whether DEFRA had estimated the value of the cross-year swap of 40 tonnes of area VII angler fish in 2007 to the south-west producer organisation in exchange for 40 tonnes of channel plaice in 2006, the Minister stated:
	No such estimate has been made.[ Official Report, 25 October 2007; Vol. 465, c. 526W.]
	When asked the reason why no estimate of the value had been made, he commented:
	It is not feasible to undertake an economic analysis of the value involved in every swap undertaken.[ Official Report, 21 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 866W.]
	Common sense would suggest, however, that the value of the swap should be taken into consideration and should be among the primary factors considered, especially as, in this instance, the swap has cost the 10 m and under fleet some 300,000 in lost potential revenue, as angler fish are worth much more than plaice. The person in the Marine Fisheries Agency who made that decision did not seem to be aware of that or value it enough. Where was the long-term plan for the inshore fleet then?
	The Minister may be relatively new in the job, but he needs to knuckle down and transform DEFRA the Department that has become a byword for incompetencebecause at the moment it is the barrier to sustainable fisheries management, when it should be providing the solutions. In recent years, we have seen non-stop consultations and publications from the Government, but a complete lack of action. We have seen wave after wave of documents and statements: Net Benefits, Securing the Benefits, Charting Progress, Safeguarding Our Seas, and the latest edition, 2027: a long-term vision for sustainable fisheries. The Government might talk about a vision for 2027, but the reality is that they have not even got a vision for 2008. They have dithered over bass, failed to develop the inshore fleet, failed to tackle discards, failed to deliver the European fisheries fund on time, failed to deliver sustainable marine management, failed to bring forward the marine Bill, failed to protect the pink sea fans of Lyme bay and failed to take the leadership role within Europe that we need. In typical DEFRA fashion, they have missed targets, broken promises and postponed deadlines. This is a complete catalogue of incompetence. Next year will be make or break time for much of the fishing industry. Reforms must be effective, fisheries must become sustainable and real change is needed. However, that change is not going to be possible under this Government.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker may I say to the House that the eight-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches applies from now on?

Stephen Ladyman: I have just heard the most extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). To summarise, he seemed to be saying, Here's the problem. The Government must sort it out, but I'm not going to commit to saying whether I would sort it out if I were in government. On the one hand, the Government should do this, and on the other hand, they should do that, but I'm not going to choose between the two. I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman's conversion to Liberal Democracy is imminent.
	I want to take a few minutes of the House's time to talk about the under-10 m fleet and, in particular, the under-10 m fleet that sails from Ramsgate, in my constituency. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) and welcome him to the Dispatch Box. I should also like to thank him for taking the trouble to come to Ramsgate to listen to the fishermen in the under-10 m fleet there. They were very pleased with his visit, and they have asked me to congratulate him on being frank with them. They did not like what he had to say, but they appreciated the fact that he said it to their face and did not try to gloss over the difficult problems that he faces.
	The fishermen's problem is that the allocation of fish that they are permitted to catch is insufficient to allow their industry to remain sustainable. They face ruin, and they expect action to be taken to deal with that. Quite simply, they do not believe that a sufficient quota is being allocated to the under-10 m fleet, and they are looking to the Government to do something about it. They are also looking for a much greater focus on their problems. They want a seat at the table.
	I pay tribute to Mr. Tom Brown, the secretary of the Thanet Fishermen's Association, who has represented Thanet fishermen in negotiations for many years and tried to get their point across. Over the past 10 years, he has also made sure that I was familiar with the problems that they face. He has validly pointed out that certain decisions were taken in the 1970s about how fishing would be managed as an industry. The producer organisations were set up effectively to promote and improve the fishing industry, but they were also given responsibility for negotiating on behalf of their members the people who sail the larger over-10 m vessels that are part of those producer organisations. They have done a very good job of negotiating on their behalf, but because they have negotiated so well, the needs of the under-10 m fleet have been completely ignored.
	I would like the Minister to undertake a complete review of the way in which the under-10 m fleet is consulted on issues surrounding quotahow the quota is going to be distributed and how the licences are going to be deployed. The producer organisations are more than just consulted: they have a seat at the table; they are players in the game. Those involved with the under-10 m fleet may be able to make their views known through advisory committees, but they are not players in the gamethey are spectatorsand until that changes, their needs will not be sufficiently taken into account.
	It is my clear view that the allocation of quota to the under-10 m fleet is wrong. It seems to me that the division between the under-10 m and over-10 m vessels is an arbitrary one, as the Minister will probably acknowledge, but the distribution of the quota between the two sectors is equally arbitrary. Over the years, errors in how the quota has been managed have compounded the problems faced by the under-10 m sector, and it is now quite clear that its quota is inadequate.
	My second suggestion to the Minister therefore is that he needs to grasp that nettle and get some quota on a permanent basis to increase the amount of fishing that the under-10 m fleet is allowed to engage in. In addition to the permanent transfer of some quota, we need a review of whether the under-10 m fleet should be allowed to buy additional quota for itself. Perhaps they should be able to form consortiums and go out and buy some extra quota, which could be restricted to the people involved in purchasing it. Will the Minister think more about that as a possible way forward?
	The Minister would be the first to accept that there are far too many vessels in the under-10 m fleet. There has been noor very littlerationalisation of it over the years. He discussed figures with several MPs the other day, which showed that a great many of the under-10 m fleet are not fishing to capacity; they are not even catching all the fish that they are licensed to catch. Many are dilettante fishermen or hobby fishermen, and some perhaps work only part-time.
	I agree with the Minister that he should examine how the fleet is structured and he may need to look into the possibility of removing some people in the under-10 m fleet from commercial fishing. If he does, may I ask him to focus on the needs of those who are making their living out of it? Those who are trying to create and build businesses and who want to provide a sustainable industry with sustainable employment for local communities are the people to whom most of the quota should be allocated. They are the ones who should be allowed to fish at a level that allows them to make a living. Will the Minister also look into ways to help those people market their product or find other ways in which the Government can help us to create fish markets in very attractive locations such as Ramsgate harbour? That would be very popular, and it would help people who catch fish locally to get a good price for them.
	There are several ways in which the Minister can help the under-10 m fleet. He can transfer some extra quota; he can make sure that the sector is listened to in the future; he can help it market the product better; and he can help distribute whatever quota is granted to people who make a living out of fishing. Those things would make a major improvement in the sustainability of the under-10 m fleet. They will not be easy to do. I do not relish the task ahead of the Minister, but I am quite sure that he is up to it.

Alistair Carmichael: First, let me associate myself, and my right hon. and hon. Friends, with the Minister's very appropriate expressions of condolence to the families of the 10 fishermen who have lost their lives since last year's fisheries debate. Let me also record my appreciationand, probably, that of all Membersof the skill and expertise of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which is often called upon when fishermen are lost, the selfless bravery of the search and rescue helicopter crews, and in particular the lifeboat crews who offer their services on a voluntary basis.
	I welcome the Minister to his first fisheries debate. He takes up the brief at a time when the debate in the House is slightly less febrile than it has been, certainly in my experience, but he and his Department still face massive challenges, and I think it is in the interests of all of us who represent fishing communities and all of us who care about the sustainability of fish stocks for him to succeed in his job.
	I also pay tribute to the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), who is now a Health Minister, and also Minister for the South West. He took on the job when he was on a fairly steep learning curve, but he got to grips with it in time, and I believe that his view was respected in the industry by the time he gave it up. I have to say, though, that when he left the Chamber at the start of this debate, there was an ever-so-slightly wide grin on his face.
	In recent years this debate has been dominated by the issue of cod stocks, and that issue has featured prominently again today. I am delighted that it is now accepted on all sides that we are seeing an upturn in the health of the spawning stock biomass of cod.  Hansard will show that for the last couple of years a number of us have told the Minister that the upturn was already happening. It was perhaps unfortunate that not enough regard was paid to that, but I am pleased that at last the advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea seems to be catching up with anecdotal evidence from the fishing industry.
	I note in passing that this year's ICES report speaks of unaccounted removalsa somewhat curious expression. Presumably they are unaccounted removals because there were never accounted presents in the first place, ICES never having accepted that the fish were there. Essentially, of course, it speaks of discards; but its acceptance of the position is welcome, as is the public evidence that it has supplied.
	It should be borne in mind that the improvement has not been achieved without pain. The United Kingdom white fish effort in the North sea since 2000 has declined by 70 per cent., and in the west of Scotland it has declined by 80 per cent. I am privileged to serve on the national council of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and I often speak to lifeboat crews in different parts of the country. They tell me that they are increasingly called to incidents involving boats with problems at sea. Ten years ago, that simply would not have happened: a fishing boat would have been within range and would have gone to help the boat that was in trouble. The fact that that task now falls to the RNLI is a mark of the change that the industry has undergone.
	At a time when attention has suddenly focused on discards, I think the House and all parties should bear in mind the real pain that fishing communities and the fishing industry have undergone in the past when the subject was not quite so politically interestingcertainly not sufficiently interesting to attract the attention of the Today programme.
	There are, of course, a range of other external pressures on the industry. One of the main pressures on the fishing fleet in my constituency is the high cost of fuel, which is having a serious impact. Fishermen in this country look with some envy and not a little irritation at the situation across the channel, where the French Government are giving fuel subsidies to their fleet. When I raised the matter with Commissioner Borg when I was in Brussels last week, no real answer was forthcoming. The Minister may wish to pursue it with the Commissioner at the December Council.
	The industry is also still immensely over-regulated. I was amused to read the following observation in the brief supplied by the Northern Ireland Fishermen's Federation:
	Finally, it is worth noting that one of the few annual increases in the EC's proposals is the amount of paper used. In 2002 the number of pages in the regulation was 102. In 2003 it was 109, in 2004 119, in 2005 151, in 2006 183 and in 2007 213 pages. The proposed regulation for 2008 is 224 pages long. So much for the EC's promised simplification agenda.
	I want to say a few words on the recent EU-Norway settlement, to which the Minister has made reference today. He is right to say that the increases in the cod and saithe total allowable catch figures, in particular, are very welcome. They are not, however, the whole picture, which is immensely complex and still very challenging, not least because the increases for cod and saithe have been coupled with cuts in the TACs for whiting and haddock. Therefore, on the one hand something good is given, but on the other hand something good is taken away.
	One benefit of the cod increase is that it affords us an opportunity to tackle in a realistic way the question of discard switch, which I am delighted to say has now found its proper place higher up the political agenda. At Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions today, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) said he risked incurring the wrath of the fishing industryno doubt the fishermen of Croydon will have been listening closely to what he had to say, and he will be accountable to them for his commentsby drawing attention to the question of discards. On the contrary, the fishing industry has been trying to draw attention to discards for as long as I have been involved in politics, and doubtless for some substantial length of time before that. Discards are representative of a situation where quotas do not reflect the balance of the amount of fish in the sea. That is a fundamental problem, especially when dealing with a mixed fishery such as the North sea white fish fishery. Allied to that, I urge the Minister to resist the argument that because there has been an increase in the cod and saithe TACs there should be a commensurate reduction in effort, in particular in terms of days at sea.

Alan Reid: On days at sea, is my hon. Friend aware that the Commissioner proposed a 25 per cent. cut in days at sea for the west of Scotland nephrops fleeta cut that is not borne out by the scientific advice, which is that nephrops stocks are healthy and the cod by-catch is insignificant? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister must resist that 25 per cent. cut at the Fisheries Council?

Alistair Carmichael: I cannot fault my hon. Friend's argument. The position with regard to west coast nephrops is particularly clamant. As he has pointed out, there is a negligible cod by-catch, and the sustainability of the nephrops stockthe Scottish langoustine, I think we are now supposed to call themin the west of Scotland has not been questioned, as far as I am aware. The cut that the EU Commission proposes seems, therefore, to fly in the face of its own science.
	The days-at-sea issue will be crucial to the success or failure of the Minister's visit to Brussels. The devil lies in the detail. At first sight, the proposal appears to be a roll-over in terms of effort, inasmuch as it takes up the question of administrative penalties, and if one buys into administrative penalties one ends up with the same number of days at sea. The Scottish fleet also has a significant number of extra days given to it by virtue of its previous decommissioning effort. However, if the Minister looks at the baseline figures he will see that there is a cut of somewhere in the region of 10 per cent. in that. This might achieve a roll-over for the days at sea this year, but it could stack up problems for us in years to come. I ask the Minister to resist vigorously the cut in the baseline figures in relation to days at sea.
	As the Minister observed, a number of other species are available in a white fish fishery, and I commend him on his efforts in drawing attention to that. May I draw his attention to another species, the North sea megrim. The UK position is for a 15 per cent. increase in the total allowable catch of megrim in the North sea. The evidence that I hear from the fishing industry throughout Scotland is that the discard levels suggest that a much larger increase in the TAC could be sustained.
	Will the Minister ensure that his officials examine the question of megrim before he goes to Brussels? It is particularly galling for fishermen to have to chuck lots of megrim over the sideit is a high-value species, and fishermen in my constituency get about 5 to 6 a kilo for megrim, which is more than they get even for monkfish. It would be unfortunate not to have a TAC in place when there are fish that will be of value, particularly when the industry's margins are as pressured as they are. There is also a growing biomass of hake in the North sea, but no quota, and let us have no further salami-slicing on species such as lemon sole, because year-on-year cuts seem to be made simply for the sake of it, and without any science to back them up.
	The pelagic fleet has been a mainstay of Scottish fishing communities in recent years, and I cannot overestimate its importance. In recent years it has kept what onshore business we have going. The proposal this year is for a 42 per cent. cut in North sea herring and a 9 per cent. cut in North sea mackerel. My concernthis is perhaps where the approach of the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) becomes particularly unhelpfulis that there is a substantial disjunction between how the scientists see the health of the stock and how the industry sees it. It is not clear who is right, and I suspect that, as ever, the truth may lie somewhere between the two extremes. The mackerel stock is of particular importance to the pelagic fleet, and if a cut is made where none is necessary, its impact would be particularly severe. There is little cheerfulness or optimism in the pelagic fleet. In my constituency, I have heard rumours of at least two boats considering selling out. If they do, they will sell out to boats outside the United Kingdom, and once gone, they will be gone for ever; we know that from experience in other sectors.
	An obvious compromise could be made on mackerel. The Minister may not be able to get what the industry wants, and I accept that there are difficulties in that. Will he negotiate from the position that there needs to be a comprehensive review of the science? There is precedent for that. Will he also negotiate some in-year flexibility for the fleet, because experience tells usI think particularly of the situation that faced monkfish fishermen in south-west England a few years agothat as the year progresses it can become apparent that the science on which the quota and the TAC was based was not accurate, and that there is an abundance of fish. Such is the importance of mackerel to the Scottish pelagic fleet that every effort should be made to ensure that any cuts are absolutely necessary in the interests of sustainability, and can be revisited in the course of the year. As I say, there are precedents for that.
	I could doubtless concentrate on other aspects of the industrybut I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak.

Bill Wiggin: Sit down then.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman, who gave us 18 minutes on the subject of sea angling and bass, asks me to sit down. It makes me long for the days when the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) was the fisheries spokesperson for the Conservative partyalthough one would not have put good money on my saying that when she was doing the job.
	The Minister goes to Brussels with our best wishes. It is in the interests of all parties, all the communities that rely on fishing for their economic viability, and all who care about the sustainability of fish stocks, that he should be successful.

Frank Doran: I wish to associate myself with the comments made by all contributors to the debate about the sacrifices by fishermen and the services provided to the industry by others.
	The general impression given by representatives of the industry is that things are better than they have been for some time. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) rightly reminded us of the sacrifices that have been made over the last few years, with the amount of decommissioning and the impact that it has had on the industry. However, fish are getting a good price at the market just now and the Minister makes an important point about a culture change in the industry. For many years, the leaders of the industry were way ahead of their membership in advocating environmental changes and talking about sustainability, but that has now permeated the industry. It has been a substantial culture change. There is now a real focus on quality of fish and a much closer relationship with the scientists, including a willingness to be involved in experimentation on real-time closures and gear changes, which is very significant. The industry, certainly in Scotland and, I am sure, elsewhere, is becoming much more pro-active.
	There is some concern at how the Council negotiations will pan out. It is the usual lottery. No matter how good the prospects might beespecially for the agreement with Norway on cod quotasthere is always concern about how they will operate. The Scottish industry would obviously like to see a fair outcome, and has raised three particular points with me. First, given the across-the-board cuts in herring and mackerel, an equitable settlement for the west of Scotland herring TAC is essential to the Scottish pelagic industry. Secondly, it wants agreement on a more precise means of continuing cod recovery by an elevated TAC to avoid discards, and a package of cod avoidance measures to reduce cod mortality. Thirdly, the industry wants a firm agreement on effort control or days at sea for the fleet sectors covered by the cod recovery plan restrictions.
	My main interest in the industry is on the processing side. We do not have very many fish catches left in the Aberdeen harbour and things have not been so good for the processors. The reduction in the fleet in the past few years has meant a vastly reduced supply of raw material. The processors are now part of a global market, in which there is much more intense competition. Some other countries can process at much lower cost than we can.
	In the Aberdeen area, there have been 50 per cent. job losses and several company closures in the industry, but to balance that, the situation does appear to be bottoming out. The North East Fishermen's Training Association, which provides in-service training for people in the processing industry, has seen 700 trainees complete their training in the past six months, and there are still 1,000 jobs in Aberdeen.
	One of the major problems for the industry was that while the fishing fleet received compensation from Government to help them through the difficult times of decommissioning, nothing was given to the processing sector. That is still a problem and the industry has had to cope with several other serious problems, not the least of which were new environmental health and food processing regulations, which have required massive investment. Although there is a sense that things are bottoming out, there are still more difficulties to come.
	The Sea Fish Industry Authority has done a significant amount over the past few years to help the industry through its difficult times. The authority sponsors the training course I mentioned earlier. I congratulate it on the work that it does in the industry. There is some controversy at the moment, not least in the city of Aberdeen, about some of the proposals for training in the industry over the next few years, but I am sure that the matter will resolve itself.
	The nephrops catch has been mentioned quite a lot. One of the issues that the Sea Fish Industry Authority has raised with me is the significant problem of dealing with shellfish waste. There are masses of regulations on the disposal of waste and a huge number of bodies seem to be involved. According to the list I have in front of me, for England alone the bodies include DEFRA, Animal Health, the Environment Agency, the Food Standards Agency and local authorities. The industry feels that it is in some difficulty. It has looked at various forms of disposal of the waste from processing shellfish. Landfill is not an option and neither is in-house treatment, because there are major legal restrictions and high costs. The industry has looked at other waste disposal outlets, but there seems to be a lack of suitable alternatives. Utilisation at sea is permitted only for certain shell types. In relation to land application, there are huge legal restrictions. The product needs treatment before it can be used in that way and the costs are enormous. Will the Minister look at this issue? It is a serious problem for the industry.
	On the progress of the marine Bill, we hear, particularly from the voluntary sector in Scotland, that there are some difficulties with the Scottish Executive when it comes to agreeing elements of the Bill. I understand that there will be reserved matters and devolved matters. I hope that agreement can be reached quickly on the marine Bill.
	The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) made the most extraordinary speech. He seemed to suggest that if we had a Tory Government, there would be more and bigger fish in the sea. That is a huge change compared with what we heard from the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton). In fact, for most of the past 10 years, the Tory policy on fishing has been to pull out of the common fisheries policy. We do not hear that much any more, so I assume that particular Tory policy has been dumped. If getting the right Government means bigger and more fish in the sea, that is quite extraordinary. I have brought my children up to believe that, under a Labour Government, there is more sunshine, but at least I have some evidence for that: the city of Aberdeen has been the sunniest place in Britain for two out of the last three years. I am waiting to see the evidence of the hon. Member for Leominster.

Robert Goodwill: It certainly has not been too sunny in No. 10 Downing street in recent weeks.
	Many people in my constituency come from a proud tradition of those who have earned their living on the sea. Members of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution have continued to put themselves in harm's way to help those who are in mortal peril. Recently, there was a tragic case in the entrance to Whitby harbour, and the lifeboat men were called. Many who join the RNLI do not come from a fishing tradition but have jobs on land. Sadly, our fishing fleet is now much depleted and the fish-processing jobs on land are also in decline. I am pleased to say that one area has been wiped out entirely: the whaling fleet that used to ply its trade from Whitby. I hope that, when the Minister goes to other negotiations, he will make sure that that situation remains the same in other parts of the worldin particular with regard to the humpback whale, which should continue to be protected.
	Captain James Cook set sail in 1768 on the Endeavour to view the transit of Venus and to rediscover New Zealand and Australia. The Endeavour was built in Whitby. I am pleased to be able to start with a good news story and to say that shipbuilding is alive and well in Whitby. Parkol Marine Engineering Ltd goes from strength to strength, and it launched its 21st boat, the 175-tonne Radiant Star, on 17 November. At 22.8 m, the vessel is 0.5 m longer than the Our Lass II, which was built for Locker Trawlers Ltd. of Whitby. Parkol Marine employs 25 workers and has a healthy order book, with two twin-rigged trawlers on order for Fraserburgh and an 80 m crabber on order for the Orkneys.
	If the Minister is interested in visiting Parkol Marine, he should come up to Whitby and see a launch. It is a spectacular operation, with a massive crane from the Netherlands being used to lift the boat off the quay and into the water. If he likes a good party, he should try and come when the Orkneymen are in town for a launch. He might even take the opportunity to come out to sea with one of the potting vessels, when he could see the discards being returned to the waters. That is a real problem, but one of the realities of life.
	The cod fleet is much depleted, with 10 full-time trawlers in Whitby and a similar number in Scarborough. The message from the fishermen that discards are a criminal waste is loud and clear. They do not just resent the money that they see being thrown away, but the fact that it is good fish that are being thrown back. This year, the scientists recommended a 15 per cent. increase in cod quota, but the Fisheries Council went for a freeze and that may be one reason why there have been so many discards.
	The Commission has plumped for an 11 per cent. increase in the cod quota next year, and I hope that the Minister will hold the line on that, no matter what some other EU countries say. I have spent some time negotiating in other sectors within the EU, so may I advise him that he should watch out for some countries that one might not expect to have a view on fisheries? Countries that do not even have a coastline may have done deals with Spain or other fishing nations, and he may find that they have strong views as a result. Perhaps some of the skills that he developed in the Government Whips Office will prove to be of help with them.
	As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said, there should be no reduction in days at sea, as that would be a case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. One fisherman told me today that the industry could live with the 25 per cent. cut in whiting and haddock quotas as long as the Government hold the line on the cod catch. Everybody says that stocks are improving, and prices have risen over the past 12 months.
	In the months ahead, I hope that the Minister will look at ways we can introduce and encourage more sustainable methods of fishing, such as through the use of long lines and gill nets. Many vessels in the inshore potting fleet along the Yorkshire coast already use gill nets in winter.

Angus MacNeil: On a point of information, the hon. Gentleman may know that the Faroese have quite a sizeable long-line fishing fleet. The method seems to work very well for them, so perhaps his fishing fleets could look at adopting it.

Robert Goodwill: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and the automatic baiting systems and the measures that are in place to protect albatrosses mean that long lining can be very effective.
	One problem with the use of gill nets is seal predation. Fishermen can get around that by having the nets out only during short periods of slack water rather than for 24 hours at a time, because in that way it is the nets that do the fishing.
	I may be skating on thin ice with this question, but does the Minister feel that the number of seals in the North sea is at a sustainable level? Should there be more of them, or fewer? What level does he think is appropriate? It is a very difficult matter, as every fisherman I have spoken to tells me that there are too many seals in the North sea. That is why I believe that DEFRA should determine what is an ecologically sustainable level for those creatures.
	We have heard a lot in the debate about recreational angling, but it is worth noting that many former fishermen now take recreational anglers out to sea. It is therefore not merely a hobby: people earn their living from recreational angling, and it is very important that they are supported.
	Concerns have been expressed to me about the proposed marine conservation areas. Will there be areas where no fishing at all will be allowed? Will recreational fishing be allowed? If I were the Ministermany people here may be thankful that I am notI would be cautious when considering restrictions on fishing from the shore, which is an activity that many people enjoy. In marine conservation areasthose national parks out at seait is important to keep the freedom to fish from the land. Let us not forget that in our national parks, one group that contributes to the most sustainable aspects of the environment is the shooting fraternity, which contributes to the environment. It would be a mistake to say that the conservation areas should be complete no-fishing zones.
	A lot of environmental damage is done through marine aggregate dredging. The Olympics will require millions of tonnes of gravel, much of which could be dredged from the sea. I am sure that the Minister remembers the Marchioness disaster, in which a pleasure boat was hit by a dredger, the Bowbelle. That dredger was not dredging the Thames and going out to sea to tip; it was bringing in marine aggregate. Big applications have been made that would affect the north-west and southernmost roughs on the Dogger bank. Those are the spawning grounds of our fish, and we should be very careful about that activity.
	I mentioned the problem of discards; we really must get to grips with that. Some of the solutions may lie in better fishing methods. Certainly, the Yorkshire fishing fleet feels a degree of optimism. After a massive decline in the numbers of vessels and people working in the industry, we are now reaching something like a sustainable level, and we have turned the corner. After Christmas, when the Minister has a bit more time, will he accept my invitation and come to either Scarborough or Whitby, and perhaps spend a day out at sea on a fishing vessel? It is interesting to learn about such things first-hand. I suggest Mr. Gordon Quinn, one of the Whitby skippers; it is quite an education to talk to him, never mind go out to sea with him. I wish the Minister luck in his negotiations. He certainly has my good wishes, and I hope that he will follow in the footsteps of his predecessors.

Michael Jabez Foster: I always want to come along to such debates and speak on behalf of the fishermen of Hastings and Rye. The issue excites me because I have always lived in Hastings and Ryewell, Hastings, anywayand the fishermen are an integral part of our local community. They are the true conservationists. For centuries, they have exercised their birthright to fish in the channel as inshore fishermen, and to bring prosperity not just to their society but to the wider community. That is at risk. Last year, I said it might be the last year that that happened, unless something changed. Thankfully, the industry has survived to face another Christmas, thanks to a good stock of sole that has come late in the year. The consequence is that the fishermen are still in businessbut only just.
	Last year, at a meeting with Tony Blairthe then Prime MinisterPaul Joy, Graham Coglan and Ronnie Simmons, from local fishermen's societies, explained just how dire the circumstances were. That was accepted by Tony Blair, who asked the then Minister if he could do something about it. Today, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister; he came to Hastings and Thanet and looked at the situation, and he has accepted that we needed to take action. Now we need to take it.
	What action needs to be taken? Of course, we congratulate the Minister on his fortitude, but also on his ambitions for the forthcoming EU discussions and debate. I am sure that he will do the best job that he can, but we know in reality that the amount of stock available will still be very limited. We also know that that will leave the under-10 m fishing fleets in enormous difficulties. Let me briefly explain why I say that the situation in towns such as Hastings and Rye is dire. Both our local fleets consist of about 32 boats. Those are small numbers; in the great scheme of the economy, that is not big, but the fleets are important to the local economy, both for tourism and beyond. If they got their whole catchall the cod, plaice and sole that they were permitted to catchit would bring each boat 400 a week, despite the good prices in the past year. That money has to maintain two or three workers, plus the boys ashorethe people who help on landand it must pay, too, for the cost of fuel and maintenance of the boat. It works out at a wage of about 90, which is not sustainable. The fleet is accredited as a sustainable fleet, but an income of 100 a week is economically unsustainable. I have thrown my prepared speech on the Bench, because every year I come to the Chamber with a 20-minute speech but I have only six minutes in which to make my contribution.
	With such a limited ability, fishing in my constituency cannot continue unless something is done. It is simply unsustainable to maintain fishing fleets in the under-10 m sector unless they are allowed a higher quota. The Minister gave the figures this week. Some 640 vessels in the over-10 m sector share 96 per cent. of the allocation, and 2,379 under-10 m vessels share just 3 per cent. They do not all go to seaperhaps only a third do sobut even if they did, the calculation of 96:3 is simply unacceptable, and it will be challenged. I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that if the problem is not sorted out, people will ask the courts to make a decision about whether such distribution is legal.
	This is an historic problem. It has not suddenly arisen, but it requires a contemporary answer. I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to look at the history of how it all happened. There was plenty of fish when the distributions were originally made, and the over-10 m sector which, in turn, gave rise to producer organisations, was given a share of the quota based on its track record or catch. Unfortunately, the under-10 m fleet, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) has reminded us, did not sit at the table, because it was not invited to the party. The then Government therefore handed out 96 per cent. of the catch to the big boysperhaps that is why big fish are their particular interestand left 3 per cent. to be distributed by the administration among the vast number of smaller vessels. That was wrong then, and it has become wronger, as there are fewer fish now.
	May I bring to my hon. Friend's attention, too, the fact that those Governments who decommissioned vessels did so only in the over-10 m sector? Consequentlyand quite rightlythere is more stock to share out. However, it is not shared out across the industry; it is shared out in the over-10 m sector. As that policy, with which I do not disagree, is carried out, more stock per boat is shared out in the over-10 m sector, but nothing has happened in the under-10 m sector. It is a wrong on a wrong, which simply must change. The Minister may well decide to introduce decommissioning in the under-10 m sector as a solution, but that is not the entire answer. Because of those historic ills, I encourage him to take early action, as it is morally justifiable to find more of a share for the under-10 m sector.
	The sector needs that share because of economic factors, and because of the problem of discards. There is a dispute between scientists and fishermen, and on Hastings beach people say that there is so much cod in the English channel they can walk on it.  [ Interruption. ] Well, perhaps some of them have supernatural powers. However, there is plenty of cod, and fishermen are discarding more in the sea than they are taking out, which is disgraceful. I believe that we should never kill animals except for foodI am a member of the anti-hunt brigadeand it is almost as immoral to throw back good food and thus waste it as it is to chase foxes. I hope that will encourage my hon. Friend to act, as we have to do something about the problem. The solution is probably to allow the fish at least to be brought aboard rather than discarded, and decide what we do about it after that. In Hastings we have the best fed seagulls in Christendom because there is so much dead fish along the coast. That has to stop.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I hope very much that there will be a solution before next year and that I will be here, still speaking for an industry in Hastings and Rye.

Alan Reid: For the west of Scotland fleet, the mainstay stock is nephrops. The nephrops stock was not scientifically assessed this year. However, the latest scientific assessment, which was presented in last year's scientific evidence from ICES, showed healthy nephrops stocks all the way along the west coast of Scotland.
	For example, quoting from the ICES advice, in the North Minch, nephrops stocks increased sharply between 2001 and 2003. The higher level of abundance in 2003 was maintained in the most recent survey. In the South Minch, the population fluctuated without trend between 1995 and 2000, but remained more stable and at a slightly higher level from 2001 to 2003. A further increase in abundance in 2004 was maintained in the latest survey.
	The results of television surveys in the waters beneath the firth of Clyde suggest that the population of nephrops has increased steadily since 1999, with the latest estimate being the highest in the series. A similar survey in the sound of Jura suggested that the nephrops population had been fairly stable during the previous five years. In the sea lochs where there are important creel fisheries, the surveys also show that the stocks are strong. So, without doubt, the nephrops stocks are healthy.
	Scientific investigation has shown that by-catches of cod when fishing for nephrops are low in the waters off the west of Scotland. The fishermen there have for a long time been practising a real-time closure. In the spring, when there is a concentration of spawning cod in the firth of Clyde, the spawning area is rightly closed to fishing boats in order to preserve stocks.
	Given all the scientific evidence that the nephrops stocks are healthy and the cod by-catch is very low, and given the real-time closure, there is no excuse for cutting the nephrops fishing effort. Despite all this, much to the dismay of the west of Scotland fishermen, the Commission has proposed a massive 25 per cent. reduction in days at sea for the west of Scotland nephrops fleet. That is totally unjustified and is not based on any scientific evidence. I urge the Minister to ensure that the proposal is rejected out of hand at the Council meeting.
	A related issue that I raised with the Minister at the all-party group is the need to restore the 28 days at sea that were removed last year from the west of Scotland 70-89 mm fishing vessels that catch less than 5 per cent. by weight of cod. Those 28 days were deducted after last year's December Council. The Clyde Fishermen's Association has told me that the deduction was applied as a result of an administrative error and was applied by mistake, not by intent. The CFA told me that the Scottish marine directorate agreed that an error had been made and did its best to get the Commission to correct the situation, but that has not happened.

Angus MacNeil: The deduction occurred as a result of an error in the translation of documents, and has had a serious material effect for fishermen. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to light.

Alan Reid: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The error has certainly had a serious effect. I urge the Minister to ensure that it is corrected at this year's Council and that those 28 days are restored. There should be a mechanism for correcting administrative errors during the year, without having to wait till the next Council.
	There is widespread agreement that the annual horse trading at the EU December Council is no way to manage our fisheries. As was said by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill), many of the voting participants come from landlocked countries and have no interest in fishing. We must move away from that annual horse trading to regional management by those who have a stake in the future of the industry.
	This year's proposal from the Commission of a 25 per cent. cut in days at sea would leave the west of Scotland fleet in an unsustainable position and is completely unjustified. Given how the negotiations work, I suspect that the proposal is a negotiating position and that the Commission is actually looking for a smaller reduction. However, we should not fall for that; there is simply no reason for any reduction whatever, and I hope that the Minister will resist the proposal. Since he secured his post, the Minister has engaged constructively with the industry and the all-party group and I wish him all the best at his first EU Council, which will be an interesting experience and unlike anything he has experienced.
	I conclude by emphasising again that the Minister must make every effort to ensure that there are no cuts in days at sea for the west of Scotland nephrops fleets.

Martin Salter: I was pleased to contribute to last year's fisheries debate and remind the House that fisheries are not just the preserve of the commercial sector, but provide the resource on which recreational angling depends. I welcome the opportunityadmittedly, I have only a few minutesto update hon. Members on developments in freshwater fisheries. I particularly want to highlight the work of the fisheries section of the Environment Agency. I also want to draw Members' attention to the work of the Anglers' Conservation Association, of which I am a member; I declare that interest.
	I welcome the Minister to his first fisheries debate. I was delighted that he made a number of references to the importance of recreational angling; that point was replicated across the Chamber. Being Fisheries Minister is not easy; after all, the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), said:
	if you are a Fisheries Minister you sit around the table arguing about fishermen, not about fish. You are there to represent fishermen, you are there to ensure that if there are ten fish left you get your share and, if possible, a bit more. The arguments are not about conservation
	wise words from a politician who has scars on his back as a result of having done the job. I wish the Minister well, and if he is short of bedtime reading during the Christmas holidays, I heartily recommend End of the Line by Charles Clovera fairly apocalyptic snapshot of the state of the ocean's fisheries in particular.
	I turn briefly to the work of the Environment Agency. Hon. Members will be aware that it is the lead body for protecting and improving the freshwater environment. Not only does it regulate, enforce and prosecute the users and abusers of our waterways, but it is charged with increasing participation in angling.
	I hope that the Minister has had the opportunity to read two important documents from the agency. The first, Our Nation's Fisheries, gives a useful snapshot of the state of freshwater stocks. The overall picture is reasonably encouraging, but behind the generalisations there are serious concerns. Coarse fish numbers are increasing in many of our rivers. In the most recent survey, fish were present at more than 98 per cent. of sites and 50 per cent. of sites contained eight or more species. That is a big improvement on a decade ago, when many more rivers were grossly polluted and their fish communities were restricted to a few or a couple of species. However, salmon stocks have been seriously depleted, and stocks of multi-sea winter fish particularly so. In 2002, 70 per cent. of rivers failed to meet their conservation limit, and 46 per cent. achieved less than half the limit. As the Minister will be aware, the news is not all bad. Salmon stocks on some previously polluted rivers, including the Tyne, the Tees and rivers of the south Wales valleys, have recovered dramatically. However, there is no cause for complacency.
	I hope that the Minister has also had the opportunity to look at Fishing for the Future, the angling participation strategy produced by the Environment Agency. The agency draws attention to its new statutory obligation to maintain, improve and develop salmon and freshwater fisheries. It has a participation target, which aims to deliver an extra 100,000 anglers by 2010. In the past three years, it has exceeded that target. Licence sales have risen and angling is doing well under Labour; we are catching bigger and more fishat least I am.
	Howeverhere is the rubthere is the issue of DEFRA grant in aid, which I raised in DEFRA questions earlier. A properly funded fisheries budget for the Environment Agency is crucial. I urge the Minister to consider what has happened to the ratio between funding for EA fisheries work delivered through the rod licence income and that delivered through grant in aid. In 1995, 44 per cent. of the total budget came from grant in aid and 52 per cent. from rod licence income. Now, 29 per cent. of the budget is delivered through grant in aid and 68 per cent. through rod licence income. Contrast that with navigation, where grant in aid has increased from 8.3 million in 2004-05 to 13.3 million in 2006-07. It is clearly unfair for the increased burden to be borne by rod licence holders.
	I wish to turn to the excellent work of the Anglers Conservation Association. Not all that is done to protect our rivers, streams and canals is done by the Environment Agencyanglers have been putting their hands in their pockets for years. The ACA was established in 1948, backed with funds of just 200. Three years later, it forced a city corporation to spend 1.8 million, worth 30 million at today's prices, on a new sewage works to prevent pollution. This year alone, it has settled 30 legal cases concerning pollution with sewage, pesticides, sediment, fertiliser and slurry. It has lost only three cases in its 60-year history, and just this week successfully negotiated 500,000 in compensation from Thames Water for its disgraceful pollution of the beautiful River Wandle, London's only chalk stream within the boundary of the M25. I wish the ACA well; it is a great shame that only about 10,000 of Britain's 2.5 million freshwater anglers are members.
	Hon. Members will be pleased to know that the constituent parts of recreational anglingthe National Federation of Anglers, the Specialist Anglers Alliance, the Salmon and Trout Association, the ACA and the Association of Rivers Trustshave finally come together to provide a united voice for angling. It is important that angling, as a guardian of the waterways, is able to punch its weight in this place and elsewhere.

Ann Winterton: It is some time since I have tried to speak in a debate on fisheries policy. I note that the issues are evergreenas are most of the speakers, with the exception of our bright, shiny new Minister, whom we wish well in his job.
	I intend to limit my remarks to the issue of discards, which has featured much in the press of late, particularly in relation to cod, as well as in this debate and at Question Time earlier today. There is absolutely nothing new about this situation, for it is simply a direct result of European Union fisheries policy. Not only is the thorny issue of discards being repeated in relation to cod, but I can assure the House that the situation will continue to recur unless common sense eventually prevails. In 1986, the fishing industry itself highlighted the amount of haddock that was being discarded, and a debate followed about how discards of small fish could be avoided by the use of technical fishing gear. In the 1980s, vast amounts of small fish were being dumped, whereas now, with increased mesh size and different trawl designs, mainly marketable fish are being thrown over the side. The problem then affected coley, or saithe, another species that British vessels discarded in abundance.
	Now, however, it is the cod catch that is being seriously affected. In the case of cod and coley, I must make it clear that we are talking about mature, marketable fish which are thrown back dead over the side to pollute the marine environment. People may ask why this disastrous and wasteful practice is being allowed. The simple answer is that it is entirely due to the European Union's quota system. For those Members who may not remember when Britain joined what was then called the Common Market, on 1 January 1973 Parliament handed competence of Britain's living marine resource over to what has subsequently become the European Union, that competence to be shared equally between member states without discrimination.
	As more countries have subsequently joined the EU, so the cakethe share each country is entitled tohas had to be divided up into smaller units. As a result, British vessels have been driven off the water to make room for the newcomers. The quota system was introduced in 1983 in order to comply with an obligation in the original treaty and was disguised as a tool of conservation, although in reality it was a tool of integration. How else could the new EU resource be divided up to distribute to the participating states without their fishermen realising what was going on? Let us not beat about the bush. The politicians involved at that time did not tell the truth about the situation until 2002, and the industry was strung along until then.
	Those Members who support the common fisheries policy, as an undisputed consequence, also support the greatest environmental marine disaster. That is a direct result of the integration process to secure the achievement of one European Union fishing fleet in what are now EU waters. Only a couple of days ago, as I mentioned earlier, the special report by the European Court of Auditors confirmed that the common fisheries policy was a failurequite an indictment, I should have thought. The CFP has failed because it is really about political union, not the management of fisheries. The quota system has created the discard system, which in turn has produced faulty scientific evidence.
	One only has to look at the successful system introduced in the Faroe Islands, where adult species are fished to a level that is sustained by the available food source. The Faroes still have limits on each species, but control catch rates by days at sea. They do not discard, so accurate figures are available about what is caught, unlike in EU waters, where no one knows exactly what has been killed. Therein lies the dispute, I should have thought, between the fishermen and the scientists. In the flawed European Union system, the food source itself has been destroyed

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ann Winterton: I will not, because of the time.
	The food source has been destroyed by the EU's previous high quota for those species lower down the food chain, such as sand eels, so is it any wonder that the adult stock is unsustainable? If the food stock is not adequate, it makes it incredibly hard to have a sustainable adult stock, and if you force that adult stock up by virtually not fishing it at all, the adults will have to eat their own young or the young of other species. Any form of life can only be sustained by the availability of food, so the concentration of effort and policy should now be to increase the base of the pyramid of the food chain, not the other way round, which is the present practice.
	However, it is encouraging to know that one of the wonders of nature is that this political, integrationist onslaught of mismanagement could still be overcome if the right policy were to be introduced. Only the rump of the original British fishing fleet survives today, the rest having been eradicated by Britain's European Union treaty obligations, but the unpalatable fact is that we can huff and puff in this House as much as we like, but as long as competence for fisheries remains in the hands of the EU Commission, there is nothingrepeat, nothingthat the UK can do to stop the discard problem.
	When the European Union stops expanding and it presides over one integrated EU fishing fleet in all EU waters, which is what the Maastricht and Nice treaties were leading up tothat all national considerations should ceaseit may take a look at the Faroese system and adopt it. However, I have made no secret of the fact that I have always been an enthusiastic proponent of a return to British control of fisheries policy. I was delighted, therefore, to see that the Scottish National party's policy is to stick to its guns and continue to support the return of national control. If that policy were eventually introduced in Scotland, admittedly against the odds, it would create an immediate improvement for the Scottish economy and coastal communities. It would also be wonderful to witness genuine marine environmental progress, even if it were limited only to Scotland at first. If only we and the rest of the UK would follow suit.

Austin Mitchell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on taking over the most important job in Government. He follows two able and energetic Fisheries Ministers. We have a no-discard policy when it comes to Ministers and fishingunlike on the Opposition Front Bench. They consulted widely and got to know the industry, as my hon. Friend is doing. I congratulate him.
	I am disappointed that debate on such an important subject is crammed into a quick gabble in the dying two or three hours of a deadly dull day. Fishing is more important than that. We should have had the debate earlier, because the shape of the settlement that we are debating was determined by the EU-Norway agreement earlier this year, which told us that haddock quotas will be reduced by 15 per cent., whiting by 25 per cent. and herring by 41 per cent. That shows that the advice of the regional advisory councils, on which the common fisheries policy should be based, will be ignored. The position paper from the North Sea regional advisory council complains that
	the Commission proposes to treat stocks where the quality of the assessments is poor
	in a way that the council does not support. We should listen to the RACs.
	The Norway agreement also tells us that there is to be an increase in the total allowable catch of cod in the North sea. The cod preservation plan is totemic for the EU. We could and should have argued for a bigger increase. Cod stocks grow phenomenally and recover very quickly. The fact that recovery is now well under way would allow us to take a bigger quota. The lower the quota, the greater the discards. We could take a bigger quota and cut down the discards. The Minister has emphasised that fact during his comments on the radio.
	It might be necessary to do something more on discards. Why cannot we consider the Norwegian arrangements, whereby all fish caught has to be landed and is then sold at a lower price so as not to reward the landing? That gives value to it, and means that it is not wasted, as it is now, by being thrown back into the sea. That has to be our approach to the coming talks. On the east coast, this last year has been a good year, but we face a more difficult year ahead, particularly in Hull. The Norwegian quota for others was cut by 28 per cent. at the last minute in the talks. Why was that done? It will be a serious blow for Hull.
	We need to consider much more flexible arrangements during the talks. We need to consider the cod avoidance plans that the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has proposed, which are very important and a successful way of maintaining other catches while avoiding the cod stocks. We need to look at selective gear. It is of concern that the terminator, important though it is, was developed in Canadait is used in Canada and New Zealandand followed the experiments with square mesh panels, of which our Government took little notice and which were financed by the industry. Those experiments pioneered the way for the terminator. We should take up the terminator, but we should have taken up the square mesh panels much earlier.
	We need real-time closures of the kind that the Scottish industry has pioneered and video recording of catches, as practised in New Zealand, as a tachometer for the industry. All those elements of flexibility need to be introduced into the talks and the common fisheries policy. We should argue against continuing the big blockbuster measures, such as days at sea limitations, decommissioning and others that have led to the current state of affairs, and argue for more selective measuresselective gear, selective catches and selective fishing in some areas.
	I would also argue for more flexibility in our country. For example, the Under-Secretary could allow a little more flexibility to the under-10 m class of vessel. The tight quota limits that are imposed on those vessels need to be eased. We could also allow the long liners more flexibility. I have corresponded with the Under-Secretary about Grimsby skipper John Hancock's vessels, the Apollo and the Genesislong linerswhich could be kept going by a slight increase in the catch of tusk and ling. That would not be associated with any increase in cod catches, because long lining is conservation-effective. We should therefore be more flexible rather than maintaining a position of absolute inflexibility.
	We should argue for more flexibility in the common fisheries policy and give more flexibility to our industry, because all the other countries do that when it suits their interests, and we should do the same. Through allowing greater flexibility, the Under-Secretary will enter into closer relationships with the industry, which he wants, and which we, as representatives of the industry, also want. We must work together and try more concertedly to bring scientists and fishermen together. The Under-Secretary must listen to the industry, as Scottish Ministers do. That puts them in a much more powerful position for knowing what the industry wants and getting it in Europe. My hon. Friend's background in social work predisposes him towards working together. In doing that, we will be successful, as he deserves to be.

Angus MacNeil: I am glad to contribute to the debate, especially as I have had to hang around London, and the outer Hebrides are far away.
	I have worked twice as a fisherman and I therefore believe that it is important to add my voice to the debate, which, I note, takes place in the window between the Norway talks and the main EU horse-trading. Again, I remark on the power of Norway to stand toe to toe with the European Unionsomething that has probably not gone unnoticed, especially by the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton).
	Many parts of my speech have already been covered, but I should like to emphasise some of the concerns that have come my way and some things that the Under-Secretary should have ringing in his ears from the last Back-Bench speech of the debate. There is anxiety on the west coast of Scotland about the suggestion of cutting days at sea for boatsthe 25 per cent. cut to which the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) alludedin Mallaig, Barra, Lewis and Kinlochbervie. There is major concern about a cut from 227 to 170 days. Mallaig and North-West Fishermen's Association believes that 215 days is the bare minimum for scratching a living. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute pointed out the error in the translation that last year enabled the 28-day cut. I emphasise to the Minister the dangers of translation when one does not use Gaelic.
	The Western Isles Fishermen's Association asked me to speak about monkfish. Although ICES is sceptical, the fishermen believe that the stocks on the west coast are good and that there is no need for a cut in quota. I hope that the Under-Secretary will take cognisance of that. The fishermen feel that there should be no cut in the haddock quota, especially as, on the west coast, they have enabled the windsock, an area of closure between Lewis and Orkney. Before any complete data come from that area, the fishermen should not be penalised, especially given that they are prepared to increase the size of escape panels from 90 mm to 120 mm. I therefore believe that technological measures can be considered before the fishermen and fishing interests are penalised. The inshore fisheries agreement in the western isles has been successful and the fishing has been much healthier there as a result of it. Autonomy, responsibilityand perhaps even independencewhen it is given to fishermen appear to work wonders.
	I am also concerned about the pelagic stocks. When the all-party fisheries group discussed the cut in the herring quota, I drew to the Under-Secretary's attention a boat that was involved in data gathering about the herring stocks and said that the skipper remarked that the scientists had asked him to fish for herring in places where he would not fish for them. When he did not catch any herring, that was used as evidence that there were no herring. The fishermen who work the herring stocks know that the herring have changed their patterns of behaviour over the years and would therefore not expect to catch any in such places. Inaccurate data might therefore have been fed into the resultant cut in the quota. Although I mentioned that at the time to the all-party group, I am not sure whether the Minister has managed to find any further information on it.
	On the ICES figures for the past few years, although the council recommended a total allowable catch of 732,000 tonnes in 2006, the quota was 967,000 tonnes. The advice the following year was for a higher figure. The figure for mackerel followed a similar pattern. Perhaps we need to be more dynamic. Mention has been made of the horse-trading at the fishing talks. Perhaps we need to move to a more dynamic and, as it were, liquid period for quota-setting. When it becomes apparent from the evidence over the year that the quotas are not as poor as expected, perhaps some adjustment could be made.
	Finally, I would like to point out to the Minister the dynamism, which has been alluded to a couple of times, not only of the Scottish Executive but of fishing innovation in Scotland, with real-time closures and the lead that Scotland is giving the EU. Under the CFP, Scotland has 70 per cent. of the UK quota, two thirds of the landing, 70 per cent. of the effort and all the expertise that comes with thatas well as, perhaps, some of the expertise of Scottish Ministers, which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) mentioned. Should the Minister not therefore give some consideration to allowing the Scottish Minister, Richard Lochhead, to lead the negotiations at the EU, no doubt ably assisted by the Minister himself? I say that with the greatest of respect to the Minister.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to this debate, although I now have just nine minutes to respond to all the contributions that have been made. I thank all hon. Members present for wishing me and my colleagues from the devolved Administrations well when we enter into those negotiations.
	The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) is a fine chap. He gave us an entertaining speech, which was big on rhetoric but small on policy. He promised big fish under the Conservatives, but he would not say that there would be a minimum landing size for bass. He also asked whether I supported the fishermen or the scientists. At that stage he became completely isolated in the Chamber, because all the contributions that we have heard from colleagues today have emphasised the need for partnership between the scientists and the fishermen. That is how we made progress and that is how we marshal our arguments, not by going back to the old days of polarised positions, which would not do the hon. Gentleman any good and is certainly not something that the fishermen want to hear, either.

Bill Wiggin: Will the Minister give way?

Jonathan R Shaw: No, I will not give way.
	The hon. Gentleman castigated us over discards. Although 8,000 tonnes in the North sea in 2006 is not acceptable, it is reasonable for me to point out that there were 33,000 tonnes of discards in 1997 and 99,000 tonnes in 1994. Discards are not new. As I said earlier, it is important to bear in mind that one of the reasons for discards is that we have a mixed fishery. Fishermen themselves will say that, particularly in areas such as the south-west, where there is a range of different fishes. Fish swim together, so discards will happen. Minimum landing sizes are also a cause. However, where there are valuable stocks of cod, for instance, we need to take action, and we will take action.
	The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who represents a fishing community, spoke passionately. He referred to the pain that many in the industry have suffered owing to the reduction of effort. However, I have heard from fishermen in Scotland that things have been good for the past two or three years. Obviously, they do not want to go back; they want to continue to go forward. There has been a reduction in capacity, and in the amount of fish that we catch. In 1987, we took 170,000 tonnes of cod out of the North sea. Last year, it was fewer than 20,000 tonnes, so of course people are concerned. Interestingly, however, the value of the landings in 1987, which were considerably larger, was around 600 million. It is about the same today, so we are getting more money for fewer fish.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the EU-Norway settlement, and about discards. He mentioned days at sea; I think that I explained my views on that during my earlier speech. He also mentioned nephrops, although I was told when I was in Scotland that they are Scottish langoustines, and I now always refer to them as such. Indeed, I have enjoyed a plate of Scottish langoustines with Richard Lochhead, and very nice they were, too. He talked about the importance of megrim, about mackerel, and about looking at the science. He also gave us his good wishes, and I am grateful to him for that.
	My hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) and for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster) represented the under-10 m fleets in their constituencies. I recognise that there are huge challenges faced by the under-10 m fleet, and I have met a number of colleagues, including the hon. Member for Leominster, to discuss the problems. We all want to resolve them. We must get the under-10 m fleet on to a sustainable footing. I have said to the fishermen in South Thanet, and I say again here, that I am not top-slicing. People have quotas and I am not going to top-slice. We need to find other arrangements. I want a better relationship with the producers' organisations and with the under-10 m fleet. There are opportunities throughout the year for gifts, and perhaps we can put that arrangement on a regular basis. I have met those involved and they say that they want to do that. That is not the whole picture, but it is part of it. We know that a small number of under-10 m boats take a large proportion of the quota. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye mentioned decommissioning, and there might well be an opportunity for a small amount of targeted, focused decommissioning.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet talked about fishermen's markets. We have to develop that idea; it is something that sea fishermen could do. We have seen the success of the farmers' markets, and that could be replicated by fishermen's markets. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran) mentioned the good prices that could be obtained for fish, and the quality of fish. He also mentioned new partnerships, which are absolutely essential. He talked about the importance of the processing industry for his constituency, about sea fish and about training. He also talked about the difficulty of waste disposal in the nephrops and shellfish industry. I am aware of those difficulties, as I have met representatives of the industry. That is something that we need to look at.
	The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) talked about the proud history of his fishermen and also, quite rightly, paid tribute to our lifeboatmen and to the sacrifices that they make. He also mentioned whaling. We have condemned Japan for its recommencement of whaling, and he and the rest of the House will be hearing more on that issue. He kindly invited me along to a great party

Angus MacNeil: And the rest of us.

Jonathan R Shaw: Indeed. He said that, after the party, we could all go out to sea, but I am not sure whether that would be very wise. He also made some thoughtful comments about aggregates and applications.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) talked about nephrops and about the 28 days at sea issue. I will correspond with him on that, as we are aware of the issue that he mentioned. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) also mentioned it. We will be taking on that issue.
	We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), who talked about coarse fishing and about the fact that there are more fish because the rivers are cleaner. He said that he is now catching bigger fish, which is good news, and that the salmon stocks are recovering. He also pointed out, however, that there was no room for complacency, as some rivers still needed to be cleaned up.
	The hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) talked passionately about her position on the common fisheries policy. She has always been consistent on that, although we differ on this occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) spoke about the regional advisory councils. I can tell him that I have brought the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation together with representatives of all the devolved Administrations, and that those discussions have been productive.
	The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar referred to his fishermen, monkfish, haddock and the 28 days at sea issue. He also mentioned who should take the chair in the discussions. Who should take it? It should be the elected UK representative, who is me, but I will work in partnership with my colleagues in the devolved Administrations.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of fisheries.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Criminal Law

That the draft Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Additional Authorities) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved. [Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Question agreed to.

RAIL SERVICES (ENFIELD, NORTH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr .  Michael Foster.]

Joan Ryan: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of rail services to my constituency of Enfield, North. There are four sections of line serving the constituency. Apart from the loop line from King's Cross and Moorgate to Hertford and Stevenage, which has a suburban service operated by First Groupserving stations at Enfield Chase, Gordon Hill and Crews Hillall the other sections of railway are part of the Liverpool Street to West Anglia routes with stopping services operated by One. That has three sections of line in Enfield: the Enfield town line; the Southbury and Turkey Street loop to Cheshunt; and the West Anglia main line, which not only carries the Stansted express and through-trains to east Anglia, but provides local trains serving Brimsdown, Ponders End and Enfield Lock.
	I refer to these services as essential because, unlike the situation in many other parts of north London, there are no rail alternatives for commuters from Enfield, North. The underground does not extend as far as Enfield, North and road transport into central London is barely an option, because of congestion, travelling time and the obvious environmental issues associated with heavy road traffic.
	Until 2004, the train service through my constituency was operated by West Anglia Great NorthernWAGN. In 2004, One Railway, a member of the National Express Group plc, won the franchise for lines on the eastern side of Enfield North, while in 2006, First Capital Connect took over the franchise for the western routes. Under WAGN's control, my constituents frequently experience delays, cancellations and severe overcrowding on their trains, with very little passenger information provided and stations very much in need of refurbishment.
	Where are we today? Perhaps I can start with an overview of the King's Cross-Moorgate-Hertford line. The main problem facing the loop line is capacity on the trains, and there are two main causes. The train lengths do not cope well with the recent and continuing growth in passenger use, including an expected 14 per cent. increase in passengers up to 2016, yet the Moorgate branch is limited to some six coaches. There is also a timetabling problem in going towards London that limits the ability to run more trains, as there only two inbound tracks between Alexandra Palace and Finsbury Park for all high-speed outer suburban and inner suburban servicesinstead of the three tracks in the direction away from London. Problems are also caused by a lack of track access.
	West Anglia is one of the most severely pressurised rail corridors in the country, supporting a busy suburban network in north London, Essex and Hertfordshire as well as express services to Stansted airport and East Anglia. It serves one of the fastest growing regions in the UK, including the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough growth corridor, and the existing track struggles to cope with the travel demand. That can only get worse with an exceptionally high growth in passenger usage of 37 per cent. forecast by Network Rail by 2016. For the most part, the railways forming the West Anglia route network have just two tracksone in each direction, with a short four-track section between Hackney Downs and Bethnal Green, but only two tracks into Liverpool Street.
	In outer London, the West Anglia mainline timetable is a compromise between passenger demand and operability, which means having to mix fast and slow trains on the same track. Current services are susceptible to major delays for some very minor problems. This week, for example, a broken down train at Cheshunt in the morning peak led to a suspension of service and major disruption for thousands of commuters. If Network Rail proceeds with four-tracking, as proposed in its strategic business plan, such disruption and delay need not occur. I hope the Minister will be able to say something about that.
	I welcome the Government's commitment to creating a rail network that provides a fast, reliable and efficient service, particularly for inter-urban journeys. I know that more than 10 billion will be invested in enhancing capacity between 2009 and 1014, with overall Government support for the railway totalling over 15 billion, and I know that that represents a higher level of investment than existed in 2004-09 with a lower level of public expenditure. I welcome that degree of commitment to improving our railways. However, as the Minister knowswe have exchanged correspondence, he has been very helpful in discussions with me, and I know that he is pursuing the point furtherI am concerned about the fact that the investment is not being translated into tangible benefits for my constituents who use the One Railway services.
	I have already outlined the major problems, but according to the Office of Rail Regulation, One Railway received a 2.9 million subsidy for 2006-07, which appears to translate into only 0.1p per passenger kilometre. That seems very low in comparison with other rail operator subsidies. Moreover, it is a premium service, and One Railway will have to start paying money back to the Government rather than receiving a subsidy. In the light of that, I wonder about its bid. If the problems that I have described exist now, how is the position to improve with a lower level of subsidy, when the company has to start paying that money back to the Government? While I approve of the overall principle in relation to premium services, I am very concerned about that particular service, and about the One Railway franchise on the basis of its bid.
	My postbag is regularly full of letters from angry and frustrated constituents who are fed up with the poor train service that they are experiencing. I therefore conducted a survey to gauge the most up-to-date views of local commuters and hear what they had to say about our local rail services. Over the past week I have been inundated with replies, and they are still pouring in. I thank all my constituents who took the time and trouble to complete the questionnaire. So far about 15 per cent. of people have responded, which I think everyone would agree is a high level of response, and which, unfortunately, demonstrates the level of dissatisfaction. I also thank a number of groups in my constituencyEnfield Disability Action, Enfield transport users group and the Enfield Lock action groupand councillors Chris Bond, Toby Simon, Geoff Robinson and Del Goddard for their ongoing work and support in seeking improvements in our rail service in Enfield.
	According to the findings of my survey so far, most Enfield commuters recognise that some improvements have been made by One Railway and First Capital Connect. First Capital Connect has told me that it is
	committed to providing customers with the best service
	that it can provide, and believes that it has made real and tangible progress in tackling issues such as performance, punctuality and quality of service. We have seen some improvements to both Enfield Chase and Gordon Hill stations, but as they were in a pretty poor state of repair originally, we started from a very low base. I believe that further improvements are planned for all three stations over the next few years, and very necessary and welcome they will be. As I have said, rolling stock is a problem: we need longer trains.
	When One Railway took on the franchise for the Great Eastern line, it aimed to make improvements to the timetable and upgrades to stations and rolling stock. It made a commitment to invest 11.3 million in station improvements on the overall lines, with 50 of the 250 stations to be upgraded within 18 months. One Railway asserts that the Lee Valley area, which includes Enfield, has seen
	a vast improvement in services.
	However, that too was from a very low base, and it must be said that most of the correspondence I receive about rail services in Enfield concerns One Railway. Yes, I receive complaints about First Capital Connect, but the vast majority are about One Railway, and they are often much more serious complaints.
	Improvements across both services are a step in the right direction, but a major problem that is still experienced on both networks, but particularly on the One Railway service, is delays and cancellations. According to my survey, all rail users in Enfield complain of delays and cancellations, but particularly users at Enfield Chase on the First Capital Connect line, and Enfield Lock, Turkey Street and Brimsdown on the One railway line. Constituents tell me that trains are often withdrawn without any explanation, sometimes hours in advance, and the public are not even informed. In fact, One Railway has told me that there were 22 cancellations in the space of just four weeks in September and October this year.
	Delays are particularly problematic during the peak-time service from Ponders End into London Liverpool Street station, which constituents tell me is often late four days a week. Meanwhile, on the Turkey Street and Southbury line, constituents have noted daily delaysinterspersed with cancellationsof 5 minutes, 10 minutes, and on several occasions half an hour. On the First Capital Connect service, the 9.14 at Enfield Chase is late on an almost daily basis and regularly cancelledwhich in fact means that it often flies through the station without stopping, which is incredibly frustrating for constituents, presumably because it wants to make a target time at its point of destination. This happens at peak time for services.
	Understandably, these problems continue to cause regular, and sometimes serious, overcrowding on the trains. We already have a capacity problem, and the running late and the not stopping make it worse. This is an issue which 73 per cent. of people I surveyed in Enfield said they often experiencea figure which is simply too high. While there have been some additional trains to Enfield Lock to help address some of this problemas I have said, only four-tracking will ultimately resolve this issuethose using Brimsdown station are particularly affected by overcrowding, as there have been no additional stopping trains along that part of the line.
	Indeed, in the survey results that I have collated to date, 90 per cent. of commuters said they often experience overcrowding at Brimsdown station. With over 200,000 passenger journeys through Brimsdown, this is a very serious matter indeed. An increase in residential development on the former industrial sites in the Brimsdown area, and up the eastern side of Enfield generally, has meant that more people need to use the train service. One Railway must meet that demand. More commuters mean more money for One Railway, and we want to see improved services as an absolute priority.
	First Capital Connect has told me that it is working to maintain what it considers to be exceptional punctuality and reliability on the route, while One has told me that its main priority is to maintain the improved performance of the service. My constituents feel they are being taken for a ridebut not a ride on a clean reliable service that runs to time. Many Enfield residents using these services are regularly late for work and other engagements, which simply is not good enough. We have also had problems with changing timetables, and huge amounts of pressure has had to be applied by local groups and people to get reasonable timetables reinstated. Sometimes in peak running times a whole hour will pass without a train, which is totally unacceptable.
	Another problem brought to my attention is customer service at some of our local stations. While conducting my survey, I was at Enfield Lock station just two Fridays ago from 7.30 through until 9 o'clock. There was only one member of staff issuing tickets. The ticket machine was not working, which I understand is a regular occurrence. There was a huge queue of people wanting tickets, stretching out of the station. The train comes in, and their choice is either to get on the train without a ticket or miss the train. A large number of them regularly miss their train for that reason, which is unacceptable.
	I understand that First Capital Connect is planning to reduce staffing at Enfield Chase station and three other stations on the line. At present, we have one full-time and one part-time member of staff at Enfield Chase, and two ticket windows open during peak times. The plan is to get rid of the part-time job, so we will have one ticket window open. Already in peak time the queue often goes out of the station and on to the pavementwhich means a queue of roughly six, 10 or 12 people. It would be completely unacceptable for one ticket window to close because the number of staff was reduced. Train operating companies tell us that they are trying to improve customer service, but this is a peculiar way of doing that. People who live around Enfield Chase and use the stations on the line will be outraged at this shameful decision, and I urge First Capital Connect to rethink it.
	As I have said, the state of the rolling stock is also a concern. I understand that First Capital Connect is refreshing its entire fleet of trains, and that is most welcome. I am not sure when it will happen, so a little further information would be helpful. I believe that there are also plans to replace rolling stock on the West Anglia routes. I ask that the local stopping services be given the new trains rather than just the older fast through trains. It is not the fast through service alone that should be given the new trains, because that would be unfair and unacceptablealthough that is what seems to happen. We should not be second-class citizens in terms of our trains and travel, simply because we use a local service and the fast through trains presumably provide more of the income.
	The lack of access for people with mobility impairment is another issue that needs to be addressed. The Enfield Disability Action group has described spontaneous travel by rail as impossible. Of the nine stations situated in my constituency, only three are accessiblethe other six all have steps up to the platform. Disabled people who wish to use the train service are required to notify the train operator 24 hours in advance of their journey, because often no staff are on site to assistthat is true even where there are no stairs. It is wrong that disabled rail users face that situation, and the issue must be addressed.
	Obviously, I cannot cover every issue today. I have tried to put both the positive case and my constituents' problems. I think that the Minister would have to agree that there are many problems and that the solutions are a long time coming down the line. I want to mention safety, because I am regularly informed by rail users that CCTV at stations is not working. As I have mentioned, stations are often not staffed and constituents have told me that there is also a persistent problem of yobbish behaviour on the trains. I am pleased at the work that the British Transport police are doing with our train operating companies. We would benefit from that being stepped up.
	I ask the Minister and the Government to share our determination, and to call on First Capital Connect and One Railway to fulfil their commitment to delivering real improvements for their customers and for the people of Enfield, who have a right to expect that. I spoke out last year against the disproportionate rail and tube price hikesin some cases there was a 30 per cent. increaseand the people in Enfield do not feel that they are getting a service that could possibly justify those increases. I hope that the Minister will be able to address these issues, and I must impress upon him that this is a serious problem, because the overground rail service is the main way in and out of Enfield for most people there.

Tom Harris: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) on securing this debate and providing us with an opportunity to discuss some important issues. I pay tribute to her for the huge amount of work that she has done on behalf of her constituents, who are also members of the travelling public. One example of that work is the survey that she mentioned. I am aware that she has had a surprisingly large response to it. The information that she has gathered will doubtless help her, and I hope that it will help me as the Minister responsible for rail services. If she wants to discuss any of the issues raised in the survey after this debate, I would be happy to do so.
	I am not sure that I will be able to address all the many important issues that my right hon. Friend raised. I will do my best in the time allotted to me, but if I am not able to cover them or she wishes to raise any other issue, I will be happy to meet her at a time convenient to both of us.
	My right hon. Friend mentioned the doubling of track on part of the Lea valley line. She will know that consideration has already been given to doubling part of the track to provide additional capacity in relation to the extension of Stansted airport. Funding decisions for that work will have to await the outcome of the British Airports Authority inquiry into airport expansion, which will not happen until 2008.
	My right hon. Friend also mentioned franchise payments, an issue that she and I have discussed elsewhere. I do not accept the argument that a particular train operating company's performance should be judged according to the level of subsidy that it receives. There are many freight train operating companies that pay premiums rather than receive public subsidy, and there should be no difference in the level of service that those companies provide compared to those companies that receive a public subsidy. As it happens, One is committed to paying a premium over the length of its franchise. There are particular and anomalous reasons why it was given a subsidy of 2.9 million in the year that she mentions, the details of which I shall not go into tonight. It is an area for more discussion between us.
	In addition, my right hon. Friend talked about rolling stock allocation and made a powerful argument for new rolling stock on her lines. It is not appropriate for Ministers or civil servants at the Department for Transport to decide on every occasion which part of the new rolling stock procurementwhich is being procured through the high-level output specificationshould be allocated to which line. Those are decisions best taken by the TOCs themselves, and the rolling stock plan will be published in January in consultation with the train industry. The plan will give more detail about the allocation of the new rolling stock.
	My right hon. Friend talked about the problem of late trains not stopping at, and therefore not serving, stations in her constituency. TOCs have targets and are incentivised not to miss out particular stations. Such a service counts against the efficiency targets of the TOCs. I am happy to discuss that point further with her and with the managing directors of the companies that she mentioned.
	My right hon. Friend also talked about the importance of access to train stations, and that is crucial. She will know that the Government have launched an access for all strategy, which will make available 370 million in funding over 10 years to provide access arrangements for people who are incapacitated in some way. So far, 92 stations in England have been identified to receive part of that money and another tranche will be announced this month. I expect that right my right hon. Friend would welcome the inclusion of any of her stations in that. The method for identifying stations to receive access for all funding is based on the incidence of disability as identified in the 2001 census, weighted according to footfall. We try to ensure that we attend to the stations that most need that money.
	In terms of ticket offices, my right hon. Friend will be interested to learn that we have not had any request from First Capital Connect or One to reduce the number of hours that ticket offices remain open. It is a condition of the franchise agreement that requests for reducing the hours of ticket offices come to the Secretary of State.
	The First Capital Connect franchise commenced on 1 April 2006, bringing together the former Thameslink and Great Northern franchises. The franchise has a maximum length of nine years, but there are two points during the franchise term which could result in the franchise ending at an earlier point. I am aware that my right hon. Friend's constituency is served by First Capital Connect Great Northern services on the Hertford loop from Moorgate.
	Performance on First Capital Connect has improved consistently since the company started operation and the franchise has also delivered all its commitments up to this point. The latest period for which complete performance data are available shows that First Capital Connect achieved a public performance measurethe industry standard measureof a moving annual average of trains arriving on time of 88.69 per cent. That represents a 1.78 per cent. improvement on the joint performance improvement plan target agreed with Network Rail for the period. Overall in the year to date, First Capital Connect's public performance measure, or PPM, for the moving annual average is 0.77 per cent. better than the joint performance improvement plan.
	I would add that the previous eight weeks are traditionally difficult for the rail network because of leaf fall and the effect of leaves on the line, which causes a drop in performance throughout the country. In the railway period from 19 August to 15 September this year, First Capital Connect delivered 96.04 per cent. PPM on the Great Northern route, which represents the best PPM figure for the route since franchising began in the early 1990s.
	First Capital Connect's delay minute moving annual average has reduced from 11,344 delay minutes per period when the franchise started to 9,717 delay minutes. In addition, in 2007 First Capital Connect has delivered a 15 per cent. reduction in fleet failures and a 40 per cent. improvement in cancellations compared with 2006. The franchise agreement requires First Capital Connect to meet three performance benchmarks: cancellations, capacity and delay minutes. The train operating company has complied with all those in each railway period since the franchise began.
	As required in the franchise agreement, First Capital Connect has invested heavily since April 2006 to improve customer service, security and station quality. The Department for Transport has ensured that First Capital Connect has fulfilled its obligation to invest 16.1 million in the first year of its franchise. That includes 2.8 million on improving the quality of stations by refurbishing waiting rooms and toilets, installing new waiting shelters and repainting many of the stations that it operates.
	I am aware that Enfield, North is also served by the One franchise. The franchise finishes on 31 March 2011. There is a continuation review period that runs from November 2008 to November 2009. If One meets its performance targets during that period, the franchise is automatically extended to 31 March 2014. Performance on the franchise has improved since the franchise commenced and all franchise commitments have been delivered to date.
	I know that my right hon. Friend wanted me to address other issues and I apologise that, in the time left, I will not be able to cover them all. As I said at the beginning, I am more than happy to meet her to discuss some of the outstanding issues. Rail travel in the south-east is in a healthy state. There continues to be strong demand for travel in the region, much of it focused on movements to and from London, although increasingly the market is growing in urban areas away from the capital. As demand increases, capacity provision becomes a greater challenge. The Government are addressing that challenge by means of the policies I have outlined here and that were outlined when we published our high level output specification in July of this year. There has already been significant investment in new rolling stock and refurbishment programmes designed to provide a more appropriate environment for London commuters to travel to work.
	The Department for Transport remains committed to providing additional capacity, and supports the delivery of innovative and pragmatic solutions to address the issue. The off-peak business and leisure markets represent a huge opportunity for the railway to increase its market share, and this is promoted further by the congestion difficulties faced by road users in the region. As we have demonstrated through recent franchise awards, the franchise replacement process provides a good opportunity to bring about improvements to capacity and service provision and to ensure that the taxpayer receives good value for money.
	Having said all that, I take right my right hon. Friend's criticisms on board. The issues that she raised are extremely important to her and to her constituents. Ministers must never forget that the whole point of providing a railway service is not for politicians, or the media, but for passengers.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Six o'clock.